On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:20:34PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> One week passed since the initial submit. Any feedback from the >> maintainer who accepts patches for this? >> > Last time I checked that was either Jean Delvare or me. > > As I already told you, I won't accept the patch as-is, > and I told you what would need to be changed to have it accepted. > > In general, we don't support adding non-standard sysfs attributes in hwmon > drivers unless really needed and discussed. As I see it, there is no need > for non-standard sysfs attributes in this driver; you _could_ use > the gpio subsystem. You chose not to and provide non-standard sysfs > attributes instead, essentially duplicating gpio subsystem functionality. MFD != gpio subsystem, but for some reason or another you continuously overlook that. You also disregard what Markus wrote: this change is just following the existing convention in there. Basically, your suggestion would lead to a mixed interface where some feature of the chip is exposed in 3-4 other places, and some centrally and in a compact manner in hwmon. > I see it as even more important to use the gpio subsystem for the intended use > case, which is to use gpio pins for fan control. In that case, providing access > through the gpio subsystem would enable using the gpio-fan driver to actually > control the fans. That is clearly incorrect. To write a proper userspace middleware would imply fishing stuff from several subspaces rather than using the same compact interface. I called that a nightmare from end user point of view. > You may consider that to be personal taste nitpicking. I don't. I consider it worse than nitpicking eventually: imho, it is rejecting a validated feature without providing a better change. It is a shame, but we cannot do anything more at this point to provide remedy here without getting financial loss, further time spent on a full rewrite, and relevant study, etc. The kernel will remain without this feature probably. I see it as a loss/loss for both parties. You will save maintaining it (even though it is me who would probably need to maintain this feature for the next few years...) for the cost of not having the feature at all, most likely. Well, I guess we will need to stick to a more feature-rich forked version for us then. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
