Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275213AbTHRWTG (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:19:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275221AbTHRWTG (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:19:06 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:61591 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275213AbTHRWTC (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:19:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:31:12 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andrey Borzenkov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com Subject: Re: 2.6 - sysfs sensor nameing inconsistency Message-ID: <20030818213112.GB3478@kroah.com> References: <200307152214.38825.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <200308161938.47935.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <20030816165016.GE9735@kroah.com> <200308182049.57093.arvidjaar@mail.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200308182049.57093.arvidjaar@mail.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1448 Lines: 36 On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:49:57PM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > On Saturday 16 August 2003 20:50, Greg KH wrote: > > > > I like this idea, but now that the name logic has changed in the i2c > > > > code, care to re-do this patch? Just set the name field instead of > > > > creating a new file in sysfs. > > > > > > something like attached patch? I like it as well :) > > > > Why rename local variables? Your patch would be a lot smaller if you > > just keep the same local name variable, and fix up the name strings. > > > > To make it clear for anyone porting other drivers that we are using type_name > and not client_name or whatever. In 2.4 every driver have both; mixing name, > type_name and client_name will just add to confusion. No, we don't need both a "type_name" and a "client_name" anymore, right? So it's just a simple "name" for the i2c client device. "type_name" is handled by the name of the client driver now. > I will redo patch if you insist but I really prefer having things consistent > if possible. I prefer having things make sense :) So yes, I'd prefer if you change your patch. I've cced the sensors mailing list to get any feedback from them. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/