Hi Jean,
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:46:59AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:51:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:25:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > @@ -818,6 +839,9 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client,
> > >
> > > static void lm90_remove_files(struct i2c_client *client, struct lm90_data *data)
> > > {
> > > + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_EMERGENCY)
> > > + sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj,
> > > + &lm90_emergency_group);
> > > if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET)
> > > device_remove_file(&client->dev,
> > > &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr);
> >
> > But this flag is never set?
>
> Oh, I get it now, it's set in the next patch. That's not OK, each patch
> should do something useful in its own right. This suggests that you
> have to swap patches 5/7 and 6/7 in the series, first adding a separate
> type for the MAX6659, then adding support for the emergency limits.
>
Ok.
> Or if this is too much work for you, you may decide to merge both
> patches (hint: "quilt fold" is quite helpful for this, if you're using
> quilt).
>
I typically use git rebase -i. That lets me do the same, including merging
and reordering patches.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
