> Looks OK, thanks for doing that. > Seemed to be the easiest and best way to shut checkpatch up ;) > I'm now waiting for an update of your patches based on 2.6.27-rc2 for a > final review. > I hope to have them finnished and sent tomorrow. > Oh, one last note before I forget: as the interrupt-based logic is new > and might not be as robust as the old poll-based one, Likely > it might make > sense to give the user a way to disable the interrupt-based logic and > fall back to polling in case the new code doesn't work correctly. > Without that possibility, I won't feel too confident to push your > patches to Linus. Remember that the ICH chips are very popular and we > just can't afford breaking these systems. > True, i'd rather have that option as well. > This could be implemented as a build time option enabling the new > interrupt-based code, tagged EXPERIMENTAL and disabled by default, or a > module parameter, or both. > What option do you think will generate more use and thus more testing? A build time option (which is disabled by default thus won't be used by the generic user) or a module parameter which people might not know the existance of, but is easy to enable? Not sure what the best option is :).
> Thanks, > Ivo _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
