Hi Wei, On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:29:32 +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > On 07/17/2013 04:28 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I do maintain the lm90 driver, so the decision is up to me. Guenter did > > a preliminary review of your patches and I am grateful for that, but I > > do not intend to wait for his return to continue with your patches. > > Otherwise he will have to do the same when he returns and I am gone, > > and this may end up delaying your patches by one kernel version. > > I will send out patches soon :) You may want to wait until I'm done reviewing the whole v3 patch set. I hope to have the time to do that today. > >> (...) > >> Oh, yes, this is a problem, I didn't noticed it. > >> How about to use this: > >> bool lm90_alarms_tripped(*client, *status); > >> bool lm90_alarms2_tripped(*client, *status2); > >> So we can read the status only once and pass it. > > > > This is a good idea but you only need status, not status2, so it can be > > made simpler: > > bool lm90_is_tripped(*client, *status); > > (handling both status and status 2 as you already do.) > > Yes this is simpler, but I think in the future we may need to handle the > status2, how to handle it ? Or we can define the status as > bit[0~7]->status and bit[8~15]->status2 . I hope we will never have to. We need it to work around a hardware implementation bug, and I hope that newer chips implementing status2 will not have this bug. That being said, yes, returning status and status2 combined in a 16-bit value would make sense. We end up comparing with data->alert_alarms which has exactly this format anyway (and so does data->alarms too.) -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
