On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 04:30:38PM -0700, Phil Pokorny wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + > > +#define FEAT_12MV_ADC (1 << 0) > > +#define FEAT_NEWER_AUTOPWM (1 << 1) > > +#define FEAT_OLD_AUTOPWM (1 << 2) > > > > Newer or older than what? Would it make more sense to number these? Gen1, > Gen2 or V1, V2 so that if yet another AUTOPWM mode/feature is added we > don't end up with "even_newer_autopwm"? > I simply replaced existing functions with a bit map. Choosing a different definition for a bit doesn't make sense w/o changing the matching function name as well. That would require a separate patch, and I am not sure if it would make sense. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
