On 2013-10-03, at 12:18, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > Interesting .... you "expected" this to be implemented, and you are "weary" > as to why it isn't. Good start. Do you have a contract which would entitle you > to have it implemented ? > > There are several reasons why it isn't. > > 1) When I wrote the driver, I did not need it. > 2) I am not getting paid for work that isn't needed > 3) No one else offered to pay for it either > 4) The amount of time I have available for fun work is limited > 5) No one else volunteered to do it either These are all fine reasons. I guess it was just my personal perception that I figured someone else should have needed this enough to do it by now. Most likely someone already did but never bothered to send upstream. > > Pretty much the same is true for every other functionality not currently > implemented in the Linux kernel - just in case you expected it to be there > and that you are weary that it isn't. Been around long enough to know this. > > In case you wonder, yes, I am getting a bit frustrated with people > expecting that everything they need or want is provided to them for free. Come one man relax a bit, I was just asking!! For your information, I will give it a shot and send upstream after your frustrations are justified for some of the comments you receive I'm sure and I totally understand why you would get frustrated. But in this case my tone was nowhere near arrogant or blaming or anything, simply interrogative and precautionary. I have several contributions merged and not yet merged and I know how the open-source model works. Please take a few deep breaths here, I'm your friend, not your whinny enemy. > >> Is there any context or fore-notion I should know about before diving into an >> implementation? Am I just being paranoid or is there greater forces at play >> here? >> > SMBus Alert support is notoriously tricky to implement, as pretty much every > chip I ever dealt with implements it differently. If alert support is added > to the driver, it will have to be on a per-chip basis; it is way too risky to > enable it for all JC42 compliant chips and just hope that it works. > Maybe we could risk doing that after it was tested with several chips and > turned out to work identical on all of them, but only then and after some > serious discussion. Now this is information I can use! Thanks! ;-P Anyone else? _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
