Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:14:01 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Jean Delvare wrote: > > > I fully agree. Plus, it would give you a chance to explain why this > > > noisy change is needed. At a quick glance I admit I don't quite get the > > > point. > > > > The point is to allow platform_data to provide all the settings and to > > allow polling of the values, without exposing any of the implementation > > variables. > > The question is: why do you want to provide the "settings" (I think you > mean the high and low limits of each sensor?) and allow polling of the > values inside the kernel, when we have a standard user-space interface > and library that takes care of this, with a dozen applications that can > be used on top of it? It makes sense to pass _some_ settings as > platform data (e.g. fan polarity) but passing all the limits doesn't > make any sense to me. We know what the limits should be for our boards and those should be set as the defaults. AFAIK there's no user-space infrastructure for initialising these things at hotplug time, so we must specify them in the kernel. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
