On Thursday 04 February 2010 10:22:03 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:23:49 -0800
>
> Steven King <sfking@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The TI TMP102 is similar to the lm75. It differs from the lm75 by having
> > a 16 bit conf register and the temp registers have a minimum resolution
> > of 12bits; the extended conf register can select 13 bit resolution (which
> > this driver does) and also change the update rate (which this driver
> > currently doesn't use).
>
> A neat little driver.
Thanks.
> checkpatch spits this warning:
>
> WARNING: struct dev_pm_ops should normally be const
> #387: FILE: drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c:300:
> +static struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = {
>
> which seems truthful enough.
Indeed. I am, however, somewhat surprised since I ran the patch thru
checkpatch before posting it and no errors or warnings were reported. Is
there a version of checkpatch other than the one included in the tree that I
should be using?
>
> And doing this will hurt readers' brains less:
>
>
>
> Use conventional array-walk loop.
Ah yes, an idiosyncrasy of mine in preferring do while over for loops
especially when I 'know' the initial test will pass. Whatever is the
preferred idiom for the kernel is fine with me.
--
Steven King -- sfking at fdwdc dot com
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
