On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:04:48PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > Thanks for your quick response (and apologies about me being delayed), I > appreciate your time! > > On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 16:24 +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > and a highly unusual way of, as much as I understand of it, bypass the hwmon > > infrastructure as much as possible. > > I can assure you that it wasn't my aim. Generally, my platform has a lot > of small "control" devices providing one sensor each. And as they are > separate from the device model point of view, I wanted them to be > logically grouped around a single hwmon device (I was actually looking > at the coretemp driver). But it's not a big deal, really. > I don't think the coretemp driver does what you are doing in your driver ... > > I don't even understand what you are trying to do, much less why you don't > > just use the existing infrastructure, and I don't have time to try to figure > > it out. Maybe Jean has time to review this driver, but not me. > > > > So, no, for my part I don't think it would be a good idea to rush this driver > > into 3.7. > > > > Really, I would suggest to submit a standard hwmon driver (there are lots of > > examples out there). > > Sure thing, I'll quickly spin a simplified version and post it for > review. > When you do that, please have a look at Documentation/hwmon/submitting-patches, specifically the "New drivers" section. Regarding your device model, yes, it is a bit odd that you have a separate platform device for each sensor, especially if the vexpress is physically a single chip. It would be much simpler to have a single vexpress-hwmon platform device instead. But if you insist having such a complicated platform device architecture, you should not try to clean it up with a complicated and difficult to understand hwmon driver. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
