Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/02/20(Fri) 10:02, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > > Op Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:34 +0100 schreef Martin Pieuchot > > <[email protected]>: > > > On 27/02/20(Thu) 16:58, [email protected] wrote: > > > > >Synopsis: boolean indicators in sensorsd.conf(5) are too > > > > >cumbersome > > > > >Category: system > > > > >Environment: > > > > System : OpenBSD 6.6 > > > > Details : OpenBSD 6.6 (GENERIC.MP) #372: Sat Oct 12 10:56:27 > > > > MDT 2019 > > > > [email protected]:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP > > > > > > > > Architecture: OpenBSD.amd64 > > > > Machine : amd64 > > > > >Description: > > > > Some upd(4) devices use -1 for "On" and some use 1. sysctl(8) > > > > and > > > > sensorsd(8) hide this detail from the user, which makes it difficult > > > > to define low and high values in sensorsd.conf(5). > > > > > > Which device reports "-1" for which usage? Is this from any > > > specification or is it a workaround for your device? > > > > In the misc@ thread I linked it was reported that different devices use > > different values. My device happens to report -1 for "On". Given how > > sensorsd.conf currently works, it would be most convenient if 0 and 1 were > > the only possible values. > > You're rephrasing your diff in words. My question is: can there be any > drawback to this approach? Did you check the spec? Why is your UPS > returning -1 and not 1 in this case? Is this the right place to fix the > bug?
I don't understand this line of questioning. He observes a -1 value, and the code can trivially deal with it. If the spec says it should return 0 or 1 only, what are you going to do not cope with the value, and tell him to warantee it? How about believing he's seeing non-0 delivered as -1.
