On 03/30/2015 12:58 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:33:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
ITE chips may have 'E', 'F', or both 'E' and 'F' suffixes.
Introduce suffic configuration to the it87_devices structure
to simplify adding new chips.
I like it, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be even better to add the
full "nice" chip name to each entry, so that you don't have to
reconstruct it from chip_type? Granted, it would require a few more
bytes of data, but it simplifies the code and would be more flexible
too (imagine some future chip has an ID which no longer exactly match
its name...) What do you think?
I though about it, but it would mean that I would have to introduce it8623
and it8726 as separate types. If we want to do that, we should probably
do it as separate patch(es).
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
index 180750ef6156..bdd6b33a3b25 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
@@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ struct it87_devices {
u16 features;
u8 peci_mask;
u8 old_peci_mask;
+ const char * const suffix;
I'd put it right after the name field, as they have the same type and
are somewhat related. (name could be const-ified BTW, right?)
Makes sense. I'll do that.
Constifying name is possible. Separate patch, though, I would think.
[ ... ]
Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
