On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Jean Delvare wrote: > > 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. We can always use fixed point math... ;-) I am kidding, I am perfectly aware it is not worth the trouble. And I agree with you, mHz would be horrible as far as usability goes. And prone to be confused with MHz, too. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
