On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:11:04 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > I agree that we should do some sanity checking, but not too much as to not > clutter the drivers. However, I think we first need to define some kind of > standard as to what sanity checking we will do, and what not, and how to handle > out of range values (clamp versus EINVAL), actually I've written and send a > proposal for this to the list already as our discussion got me thinking about this. What I've been telling contributors so far is: clamp for "continuous" values those boundaries aren't known to the user, -EINVAL for the rest. The rationale is essentially the same I mentioned earlier in this thread: limits can be computed by libsensors, and we do not want a slightly out-of-bound values to be ignored or trigger errors. But for pretty much all the rest, returning an error on invalid values seems to be the sane thing to do. I agree that having these rules written somewhere would probably save some question from new driver contributors. -- Jean Delvare
