On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > The optional extended local temperature register can never have > address 0, as this address is already used by another register. Thus > we can get rid of flag LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT and simply rely on > reg_local_ext being non-zero to determine if a given chip has this > extension or not. This makes the code more simple. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Stijn Devriendt <sdevrien@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Notes: > * This patch fixes a bug as a side effect: chip type max6657 lacked > the definition of reg_local_ext. I can submit a separate patch for > this, or it can be fixed in the patch which broke it (as it isn't in > Linus' tree yet) and I'll adjust this one accordingly, or this patch > can be merged in the patch which broke it altogether. All options > are fine with me. Guenter? > * Another approach would be to keep MAX6657_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMPL, but set > it automatically in lm90_probe(). Opinions? > I prefer your fix; it makes the code simpler. Regarding the max6657 problem - I'll fix that in the original patch and apply this one on top of my queue. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
