On 10/07/11 10:56, Himanshu Chauhan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:52:37PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:12:40PM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 12:07:52PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> And why, and what for. >>> >>> The initial idea of posting to kernelnewbies was to get a hint on how >>> the patch would be taken as. I wanted to know if developers will like >>> the idea behind it or not. I guess, Guenter is not convinced with >>> any of my reasoning. I am willing to clean it up further only if >>> I get a positive hint. But it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. >>> >>> Thanks Guenter, Alan, and Greg for taking your time and reviewing it. >>> >>> Greg: To answer your last question, if this was taken positively, I >>> was thinking of having functionality similar to misc device registration. >> >> But why? What is that device node going to be used for? Who would be >> using it in userspace and where would it be tied into in the kernel? >> > The device node, as I said earlier, can be used for doing IOCTLS. In user space, > applications that manage and monitor system environment will need to use this > interface for querying the sensor's location, for example. In side the kernel, > the driver that is driving the particular hardware sensor can register a char > interface for all this and then register with hwmon with the same major/minor > for usual sysfs export of data. If location is useful info why not propose a sysfs interface for it? _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
