On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:09:06 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:51:09 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > I found the following attributes used for the update inverval. > > > > > > adt7470.c auto_update_interval > > > lm95241.c rate > > > adm1031.c update_rate > > > > > > Not sure about adt7470.c, ince it reflects an automatic interval, but would it make sense > > > to update lm95241.c to use the standard attribute ? > > > > Yes it would. > > > > > On a side note, update_rate (or rate) doesn't really reflect its use. A "rate" > > > would be measured in updates/time, not in absolute time. Or, in other words, > > > it reflects a frequency, not an interval. So we are really talking about intervals. > > > Not sure if that is worth bitching about, but since the attribute is quite new > > > it might make sense to think about it. > > > > Jonathan Cameron (Cc'd) had a similar concern: > > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2010-May/028596.html > > > > Nobody seemed to care back then. I can't disagree with both of you, but > > OTOH I don't feel too strongly about it either. So if someone submits a > > patch making things better, that's fine with me, but I won't spend my > > own time on it. > > I'll submit a set of patches. update_interval ok ? It reflects the time between > events, while period tends to reflect a duration. Yes, I would be fine with update_interval. Jonathan, OK with you too? > > > Resolution would have to be sensor dependent, since each sensor can have its own resolution. > > > Would be nice to have an attribute for that. > > > > Not too sure about that. I had the same reaction at first, but do we > > actually know of devices where the resolution isn't global? > > Yes, in the lm90 driver. Only max6657/58/59 and max6646 have extended local > temperatures, all other chips have only 8 bit resolution for the local temperature. > Remote temperatures are all extended, ie have higher resoution. But resolution can't be changed on these chips, can it? I think the main purpose of these files is to let the user change the resolution for chips which support this (usually this is an update speed / resolution trade-off). Or do you believe that having read-only attributes exposing fixed resolutions would be valuable? I'm a little worried because resolution as a bit number isn't too informative and doesn't quite work as a device-independent value. If you really want the information to be exposed to user-space for all devices, then we'd rather use actual sensor units (mV, m°C, whatever) for resolution, and possibly add other attributes for the range. But this means adding a whole lot of attribute files for some devices (if we do it on a per-channel basis), so we first have to determine whether it is really worth it. I don't think it is, but you can try and convince me. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
