On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:02:40AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 05/14/2009 10:06 AM, Andre Prendel wrote: >> Hello Jean, Hans, >> >> here is my first work at TI's 401/411 temperatur sensor. The patch(es) >> aren't intented to be applied. I just want some comments and maybe >> real testing by Hans. >> >> The first patch is the original one from Hans sent to me. >> >> The second patch contains some work of Hans' students. I've brought >> it in shape. The driver now has multichip support in the usual way. >> >> TODO: >> Update Kconfig >> Writing documentation >> > > Great, thanks for working on this! > >> There are a few remaining questions. >> >> 1. Hans' students implemented two additional sysfs entries >> (tempX_[lowest|highest]). >> >> The TMP411 chip has some additional registers for minimum and maximum >> temperatures measured since power-on and chip-reset. >> >> AFAIK there are no standard sysfs entries for these values. I don't >> remove the support so far. Should it be removed? Are there other chips >> with such features? >> > > Ah, good point I forgot about that, I told my student to name the new > tempX_[lowest|highest] based on the existing and documented > (Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface) powerX_average_[lowest|highest] > sysfs attributes, which do the same (tracking min / max over time) for > powermeter IC's. So unless someone objects, I think these should stay > and get documented in Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface. > >> 2. There is another command to reset the chip. Is this a useful feature? >> > > An other very good point! My first response was no, but actually it is, > as this can be used to reset the min / max temp tracking. Modelling > after the powermeter API again, you should add a temp_reset_history, notice > no number there as it resets the history for all temps at once (AFAIK). > > Again this needs to be documented, in 2 variants: temp_reset_history and > tempX_reset_history > >> 3. Indentation >> >> What is the right way to indent arguments in function declaration? >> >> a) >> static int tmp401_probe(struct i2c_client *client, >> const struct i2c_device_id *id) >> >> b) >> static int tmp401_probe(struct i2c_client *client, >> const struct i2c_device_id *id) >> >> My emacs prefered the first one, but sometimes this doesn't look very >> well. >> > > Erm, I think both are allowed, I myself usually use b, but I don't think > I'm consistent with that. > >> 4. May I add a copyright note of me in the header? >> > > Sure. > > >> Again, thank you very much for your help. It's a pleasure to work with >> you. > > And it is a pleasure to work with you sir! > > > Regards, > > Hans > > > p.s. > > I somehow am missing patch 2/2, or am I just lacking patience ? I sent the patches one by one. I don't know what's happend. No delivery failure so far. I will just send the last patch again. Andre
