On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:25:48AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:14:08 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:28:03AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > This is smart :) I like it a lot. Just not sure why you limited the > > > shift to 2 bits, shifting by say 6 bits would guarantee that future > > > devices supporting greater values for the conversion rate register > > > (up tp 13) would be supported out of the box. > > > > > I ran test code for all supported values, and found that shift by 2 > > was sufficient. It can always be changed if someone ever comes up with > > a sensor supporting even higher resolution. Call me minimalist ... > > My point was that shifting by 6 doesn't cost more than shifting by 2. > You are right. Sometimes I am too much of a minimalist. > > > Also note that you may want to use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() to make the code > > > slightly easier to read. > > > > > Yes, that would be cleaner for the final interval calculation. > > Want me to change it and send out another revision ? > > As you wish, I am fine either way. > Let me send you another rev, with shifting by 6 and using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
