On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 02:51:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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 like regaddr.
Thanks!
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
