On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:05:54AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:53:01 -0800 > Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > > > From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of > > > affairs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense > > to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get > > support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able > > to see the reason. > > > > Thoughts ? > > That or pass whether /dev/freefall is wanted in the platform data > somewhere ? > > Basically though if dev->irq is not set it means there is no IRQ, and > that isn't neccessarily an error. > Difference is developer knowledge (no irq) vs. user understanding. Sure, no irq implies no freefall, and that is not an error. However, the user won't know that, and thus might appreciate a note. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
