Hi,
The following patches implement dynamic sysfs callbacks for
device_attribute, and provide a possible standard sensor attribute
macro for the majority of the i2c sensor chip/hwmon drivers. Finally a
patch against adm1026 shows how the patch can be used to reduce the
footprint and clean up an existing driver.
The new form of dynamic sysfs callback simply passes a reference to
the device_attribute struct, instead of a void *, along the lines of
the suggestion by Russell King (see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/14/116). Embedding the device_attribute
struct in a custom struct one can use a macro based on container_of to
access the custom attribute specific data.
Although functionally as capable as the void *, this solution I feel
is better in that it rids of some error-prone casting, and the
resulting code seems generally cleaner and easier to understand, there
is also no need for the extra void * member in the base sysfs
attribute. On the other hand a bit more work is required to implement
this on a grand scale, and in many cases a new attribute struct might
have to be defined for a driver, along with any convenience macros. My
example patch implements a new attribute struct
sensor_device_attribute that should be reusable by the majority of i2c
chip drivers (as suggested by Greg).
Signed-off-by: Yani Ioannou <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Yani
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 06:39:07AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following patches implement dynamic sysfs callbacks for
> device_attribute, and provide a possible standard sensor attribute
> macro for the majority of the i2c sensor chip/hwmon drivers. Finally a
> patch against adm1026 shows how the patch can be used to reduce the
> footprint and clean up an existing driver.
<snip>
Ok, I think I got all of these patches applied properly (hint, don't
label your intro message as 1/15, it should be 0/14, with 14 different
patches, that threw me off for a bit.) I've also included your i2c
driver patch for the adm1026 driver only. All of these patches are now
in my tree and can be found on kernel.org in the place where my
patchscripts notified you. If you could verify them I would appreciate
it (I also added a few patches for stuff that was in my tree only, like
new i2c drivers and some usb and pci sysfs stuff to make them build
properly.) All of this should show up in the next -mm release too.
Thanks a lot for sticking with this process, I really appreciate it.
Now you can get back to actually fixing up the i2c drivers you wanted
to, which was what you wanted to do in the first place :)
thanks again,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On 5/18/05, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I think I got all of these patches applied properly (hint, don't
> label your intro message as 1/15, it should be 0/14, with 14 different
> patches, that threw me off for a bit.) I've also included your i2c
> driver patch for the adm1026 driver only. All of these patches are now
> in my tree and can be found on kernel.org in the place where my
> patchscripts notified you. If you could verify them I would appreciate
> it (I also added a few patches for stuff that was in my tree only, like
> new i2c drivers and some usb and pci sysfs stuff to make them build
> properly.) All of this should show up in the next -mm release too.
Thanks a lot! Sorry about the incorrect numbering, first time I've
done an intro. I'll have to send you a patch against the differences
between 2.6.12-rc4 and 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 so we don't run into a huge
amount of trouble when they merge...
A quick glance through everything looks fine, but I'll do a proper
check tomorrow using your git tree.
> Thanks a lot for sticking with this process, I really appreciate it.
> Now you can get back to actually fixing up the i2c drivers you wanted
> to, which was what you wanted to do in the first place :)
Yes it will be good to get back to my own area for a bit, maybe even
finally get bmcsensors into a state where it can be accepted :-),
however it has been a nice break and I can see other areas that could
benefit from things along the line of this patch so I might yet
intrude upon the rest of the kernel again ;-).
Thanks,
Yani
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:28:23AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 5/18/05, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ok, I think I got all of these patches applied properly (hint, don't
> > label your intro message as 1/15, it should be 0/14, with 14 different
> > patches, that threw me off for a bit.) I've also included your i2c
> > driver patch for the adm1026 driver only. All of these patches are now
> > in my tree and can be found on kernel.org in the place where my
> > patchscripts notified you. If you could verify them I would appreciate
> > it (I also added a few patches for stuff that was in my tree only, like
> > new i2c drivers and some usb and pci sysfs stuff to make them build
> > properly.) All of this should show up in the next -mm release too.
>
> Thanks a lot! Sorry about the incorrect numbering, first time I've
> done an intro. I'll have to send you a patch against the differences
> between 2.6.12-rc4 and 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 so we don't run into a huge
> amount of trouble when they merge...
That would be good.
> A quick glance through everything looks fine, but I'll do a proper
> check tomorrow using your git tree.
I don't have a git tree for stuff that is not ready to be sent to Linus
at that moment. I'm using quilt to stage stuff and have them be sucked
into the -mm releases. It's easier that way for me right now.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 5/18/05, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:28:23AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> I don't have a git tree for stuff that is not ready to be sent to Linus
> at that moment. I'm using quilt to stage stuff and have them be sucked
> into the -mm releases. It's easier that way for me right now.
Yes I just realized my mistake, OK I'll try the patches against -mm2
along with a patch to update all the added device
callbacks/differences and make sure nothing goes horribly wrong with
it tomorrow. BTW I sent a patch against it87.c to lm_sensors so Jean
could test things (apparently adm1026 hasn't got many users).
Thanks again,
Yani
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:41:59AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> BTW I sent a patch against it87.c to lm_sensors so Jean could test
> things (apparently adm1026 hasn't got many users).
Yes, I was going to wait until I got a "ack" from him before applying
that patch.
thanks,
greg k-h