Hi Guenter, On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:50:00 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:26:15PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > One thing I am a little worried about (but maybe I'm wrong) is that I > > seem to understand you want to register every LM90-like chip as both a > > hwmon device and two thermal devices. I seem to recall that every > > thermal device is also exposed automatically as a virtual hwmon > > device, is that correct? If so we will be presenting the same values > > twice to libsensors, which would be confusing. > > Not sure if that is a good idea, but if I recall correctly, the thermal folks > plan to remove that path. If that means that for example the ACPI thermal zone is no longer displayed by "sensors", then I strongly object - unless it is explicitly registered as a separate hwmon device from now on, of course. My idea was to make the bridge optional - you decide when you register a thermal device if it should be exposed as hwmon or not. I don't have a strong opinion on the implementation, as long as each input is listed by "sensors" once and only once. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
