Excerpts from Jean Delvare's message of 2011-03-26 17:50:31 -0400: > I don't. Sure, the hardware default for the low nibble of the "status" > register is 0, and the driver was leaving it untouched so far, but that > doesn't mean that the BIOS or firmware didn't change it before the > sht15 driver got loaded. The patch adding support for checksum > validation should handle this case properly. That's right. I'll switch the two patches. Firstly, the status register support, then the CRC support. > I guess it was difficult to find a suitable name, given that the high > nibble of the register holds status bits and the low nibble holds > configuration bits. > > > You're right. Should I rename every sht15_*_status() functions into > > sht15_*_state()? > > My opinion on this (which you are free to listen to or ignore): "state" > is hardly better than "status" to describe this register. So I would > either stick to "status" to match the datasheet, or go for "config" to > reflect the nature of the writable bits of the register. I think I'll keep "status" because it won't make sense to write a SHT15_CONFIG_BATTERY to match the battery state bit. > > Good night, Regards, Vivien. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
