[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100914134659.5a9e72df@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:46:59 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v2 5/7] hwmon: (lm90) Introduce 3rd set of
upper temperature limits
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:51:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:25:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > @@ -818,6 +839,9 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client,
> >
> > static void lm90_remove_files(struct i2c_client *client, struct lm90_data *data)
> > {
> > + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_EMERGENCY)
> > + sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj,
> > + &lm90_emergency_group);
> > if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET)
> > device_remove_file(&client->dev,
> > &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr);
>
> But this flag is never set?
Oh, I get it now, it's set in the next patch. That's not OK, each patch
should do something useful in its own right. This suggests that you
have to swap patches 5/7 and 6/7 in the series, first adding a separate
type for the MAX6659, then adding support for the emergency limits.
Or if this is too much work for you, you may decide to merge both
patches (hint: "quilt fold" is quite helpful for this, if you're using
quilt).
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists