On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:08:15 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > This patch introduces a general System Firmware interface to the kernel, called > sysfw. > > Inlcluded in this interface is the ability to search a standard set of fields, > sysfw_lookup(). The fields are currently based upon the x86 and ia64 SMBIOS > fields but exapandable to fields that other arches may introduce. Also > included is the ability to search and match against those fields, and run > a callback function against the matches, sysfw_callback(). > > Modify module code to use sysfw instead of old DMI interface. This is a HUGE patch set. You'd need to have a good reason for such a big and intrusive change, yet I see no such reason explained. I understand that we _can_ abstract system information interfaces, but just because we can doesn't mean we have to. I would at least wait for a second DMI-like interface to be widely implemented and support before any attempt to abstract, otherwise your design is bound to be missing the target. And even then, you'd still need to convince me that there is a need for a unified interface to access both backends at once. I would guess that you know what backend is present on a system when you try to identify it. At this point, I see the work needed to review your patches, the risk of regressions due to the large size of the patch set, but I don't see any immediate benefit. Thus I am not going to look into it at all, sorry. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
