Hi Hans, On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:24:00 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Looking at the code of several user-space applications using > > libsensors, this interface is not very convenient. Except for "sensors > > -u", which makes some sense as I think it is the reason why this > > interface exists in the first place. Here is a list of things I found > > the applications would take benefit of if libsensors would propose a > > suitable interface: > > > > * Separate lists for main features and subfeatures of each main feature. > > > > +1 Implemented in r4831. We now have: /* This returns all main features of a specific chip. nr is an internally used variable. Set it to zero to start at the begin of the list. If no more features are found NULL is returned. Do not try to change the returned structure; you will corrupt internal data structures. */ const sensors_feature * sensors_get_features(const sensors_chip_name *name, int *nr); /* This returns all subfeatures of a given main feature. nr is an internally used variable. Set it to zero to start at the begin of the list. If no more features are found NULL is returned. Do not try to change the returned structure; you will corrupt internal data structures. */ const sensors_subfeature * sensors_get_all_subfeatures(const sensors_chip_name *name, const sensors_feature *feature, int *nr); > > * Subfeature existence information (does feature F of chip C have > > subfeature X?) > > > > +1 > > > * Direct subfeature value lookup (what's the value of subfeature X of > > feature F of chip C?) > > > > +1 Both implemented in r4846: /* This returns the subfeature of the given type for a given main feature, if it exists, NULL otherwise. Do not try to change the returned structure; you will corrupt internal data structures. */ const sensors_subfeature * sensors_get_subfeature(const sensors_chip_name *name, const sensors_feature *feature, sensors_subfeature_type type); > (...) > > I am working on some patches implementing these API changes, I hope to > > be able to post them for comments and review at the end of the week. > > Until then, I would also welcome comments on the general ideas I just > > exposed. > > The basic ideas I'm vary much in favor off, as for the under the hood > implementation, I haven't given much thought to that, I trust you will come up > with something good. I've committed all my patches now, so that we don't lose too much time. Still, if you or anyone else has objections to what I did, please speak up and we'll address them. I'm done with the libsensors API review. I've done my best to make it more convenient to use. I've also made quite a lot of performance improvements. I sincerely hope that this new library will work for as long as its predecessor did. This basically means that we are next to the point where we can release lm-sensors 3.0.0! My plan is to release a RC1 next week, and give application authors some time to port their application to the new API and comment on it. Or we can try porting them on our own and see how it goes. I've ported xsensors already. It would be good to have all popular sensor apps ported quickly so as to make sure that the new API fits the needs. If you need help with a port, just ask me. -- Jean Delvare
