Hi Thierry, Thanks for the review, it is greatly appreciated. A couple additions... On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:15:15 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 03:57:49PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > > Add support to handle irq. When the temperature touch > > Nit: This first sentence can be dropped. It merely repeats the subject. Note that I have no problem with that. > > (...) > > @@ -1423,6 +1424,18 @@ static void lm90_init_client(struct i2c_client *client) > > i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_CONFIG1, config); > > } > > > > +static void lm90_alert(struct i2c_client *client, unsigned int flag); > > Any reason why the implementation of lm90_alert() can't be moved here. > Granted, it'll make the diff larger but at least it'll allow us to get > rid of the forward declaration. Yes, please avoid forward declarations as much as possible. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
