Hi Guenter,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:03:02 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 16:38 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:43:34 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(vrm, "VRM/VRD version, multiplied by 10");
> >
> > This is no longer always true, as explained in doc/vid in the
> > lm-sensors source tree. This document should probably be updated and
> > moved to the kernel tree.
>
> Makes sense. Documentation/hwmon/hwmon-vid ?
Yes.
> > > (...)
> > > @@ -288,19 +305,38 @@ u8 vid_which_vrm(void)
> > > vrm_ret = get_via_model_d_vrm();
> > > if (vrm_ret == 0)
> > > pr_info("Unknown VRM version of your x86 CPU\n");
> > > - return vrm_ret;
> > > +
> > > + vrm = vrm_ret;
> >
> > Isn't this overriding the module parameter passed by the user?
>
> Yes. That was on purpose, since the resulting vrm can then be accessed
> by userland through the respective sysfs entry. I thought that was a
> good idea. Maybe not ?
Forget about this. Being unable to apply the patch, I couldn't read the
function in its entirety. I was commenting on a code flow which cannot
actually happen.
> > > (...)
> > > +static void __exit vid_exit(void)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> >
> > Do you really have to create that stub?
>
> I think so. The driver refuses to unload if it does not exist.
OK, good to know.
> (...)
> To retain the ability to compile the code, I'll have to provide a single
> patch for all affected files. Is that ok ?
If you have to do that, it's OK. We've seen much much larger patches
before.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
