On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:40:46 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Actually, I think I'll have to re-do the whole patch anyway. As you pointed out, > it does not reflect the documented attributes, and there are other problems > such as how and when to display alarms. Without going into details, > I don't think we really disagree on anything I agree. > - the idea was to retain the existing output. Up to a certain point, yes. Where the current output was decided because it made sense, we want to keep it as is. But being identical to the character isn't a goal per se. In particular, if switching to more generic code is possible and makes the code smaller and/or more readable and/or more maintainable, we definitely want to consider that, even if this changes the output slightly for some chips. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
