On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. > If I recall correctly that was the idea. Of course, in practice that will mean that devices will _not_ get exposed as hwmon devices, as implementers won't bother doing both. > 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. > Yes, that would be a much better solution. > I don't have a strong opinion on the implementation, as long as each > input is listed by "sensors" once and only once. > Agreed. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
