Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758199Ab0BDVRl (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:17:41 -0500 Received: from smtp103.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.238]:49113 "HELO smtp103.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757865Ab0BDVRk (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:17:40 -0500 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qGLgp.mswBDSnFfWmYVMF5Rmg6NJ X-YMail-OSG: 7rqAYTsVM1lK8V7.O7ZfYPUQ8.akbM8wF1dVYYp9dVvGsCFgAWvqEl1V6zuZsu7Ge09sXB4BpOxRCPkKLcogHgIiQK1HTpW.x472IMgl5kRCkS5GzMyJcjcrOUokgZvmdzYA5L84DpZv5To0alSyAbFc1VSnOK_Cxhr0vnsE0koURkHF.Rm.t9hTP.OfJ2qyUcIOzr5sverU5jc..YQLfm7XCP2PWVElXl8UY8KevWQdxW_b8NXy9AV8jcYCwYJU36RbUz.Xs5rNdMPcisEWhBvsjv3i.awRqsiuyEJp1DiAzqTah0bAKYnZN2Ti5gYw5qiVy72UlFE6wAdbZpb0ABjN7CdE0ap2DCmODa4rZ8ASlIK0rv9xj8V.XMA81aPbAaF0n8c59Q-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Steven King Organization: fdwdc.com To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: driver for TI tmp102 temperature sensor Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:17:37 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Jean Delvare , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <201002031723.49976.sfking@fdwdc.com> <20100204102203.ecf4bbb5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100204102203.ecf4bbb5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201002041317.37574.sfking@fdwdc.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1549 Lines: 45 On Thursday 04 February 2010 10:22:03 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:23:49 -0800 > > Steven King wrote: > > The TI TMP102 is similar to the lm75. It differs from the lm75 by having > > a 16 bit conf register and the temp registers have a minimum resolution > > of 12bits; the extended conf register can select 13 bit resolution (which > > this driver does) and also change the update rate (which this driver > > currently doesn't use). > > A neat little driver. Thanks. > checkpatch spits this warning: > > WARNING: struct dev_pm_ops should normally be const > #387: FILE: drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c:300: > +static struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = { > > which seems truthful enough. Indeed. I am, however, somewhat surprised since I ran the patch thru checkpatch before posting it and no errors or warnings were reported. Is there a version of checkpatch other than the one included in the tree that I should be using? > > And doing this will hurt readers' brains less: > > > > Use conventional array-walk loop. Ah yes, an idiosyncrasy of mine in preferring do while over for loops especially when I 'know' the initial test will pass. Whatever is the preferred idiom for the kernel is fine with me. -- Steven King -- sfking at fdwdc dot com -- 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/