On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 04:36:29 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:17:40PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:02:55 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > -static ssize_t store_temp_max(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> > > - *devattr, const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > +static ssize_t store_temp(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> > > + const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > {
> > > - int index = to_sensor_dev_attr(devattr)->index;
> > > + int nr = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(devattr)->nr;
> > > + int index = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(devattr)->index;
> > > struct tmp401_data *data = tmp401_update_device(dev);
> > > long val;
> > > - u16 reg;
> > > -
> > > - if (kstrtol(buf, 10, &val))
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > + u16 regval;
> >
> > This name change is inconsistent, "reg" is used everywhere else.
> >
> I know. Problem is that I need a "reg" or similar variable for the register
> itself when adding tmp432 support, so I decided to go with regval for the
> register value.
> Got a better / different good name for the register variable ?
If you use "reg" for the register value, you could use "regname" or
"regaddr" for the register itself.
I'd be fine with "regval" and "reg" instead, but only if these are used
consistently throughout the whole driver.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
