On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:42:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:07:14 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > The attribute reflects an interval, not a rate. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface | 12 +++++----- > > > drivers/hwmon/adm1031.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface > > > index ff45d1f..df0cdd2 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface > > > +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface > > > @@ -91,13 +91,13 @@ name The chip name. > > > I2C devices get this attribute created automatically. > > > RO > > > > > > -update_rate The rate at which the chip will update readings. > > > - Unit: millisecond > > > +update_interval The interval at which the chip or driver will update readings. > > > > I think I prefer the original wording. The attribute is really about > > setting the register refresh rate at the hardware level. The fact that > > Only, it doesn't set any rates in the hardware. It sets the period > (interval). > > If the unit of update_rate is changed to Hz, and the driver does > hardware_timer_milliseconds = 1000/update_rate_Hz, THEN it will be > correct to call it a rate... I agree. My point was really only about "chip or driver" vs. "chip". > I'd rather have it in Hz, actually. I consider that more user-friendly. > But that's just personal preference. The problem with Hz is that we need to be able to handle values lower than 1, and mHz as a unit isn't exactly friendly. I would be very fine with Hz (especially as we use it for pwmN_freq already) if we didn't have to support frequencies below 1 Hz. For such low frequencies, period (or interval) is clearer than frequency IMHO. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
