On 18-11-2013 12:25, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:27:41AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >> On 15-11-2013 03:43, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> Hi Eduardo, >>> >> >> Hello Jean! >> >>> Sorry for joining the discussion a little late, I could never find the >>> time to look into this patch series so far. >> >> Well, better late than never, that's what it is said, isn't it? :-) >> Thanks for arranging the time to look at these patches. >> >> The patch series have been looked and contributed by several people and >> a couple o maintainers now. Starts to be way better than the original >> RFC. The core idea still holds though. >> >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:46:08 -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>>> This patch adds to lm75 temperature sensor the possibility >>>> to expose itself as thermal zone device, registered on the >>>> thermal framework. >>>> >>>> The thermal zone is built only if a device tree node >>>> describing a thermal zone for this sensor is present >>>> inside the lm75 DT node. Otherwise, the driver behavior >>>> will be the same. >>>> >>>> Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> On HWMON side, I got Guenter's solid contributions, as you can see. >> > Not an argument. I am not perfect, and Jean has a number of valid points. > In fact, this is not an argument, at least not on what Jean is bringing now. The point here was just to mention that, even though he joined late, you have already contributed on this patch series. ;-) > Guenter > > -- You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport) Eduardo Valentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
