On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:37:56 -0700, Frank Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1: My Inspiron 9200 (and perhaps others) doesn't seem to respond to the > I8K_SMM_BIOS_VERSION function call, so it fails the check in i8k_probe. > ~ The check of i8k_get_bios_version doesn't seem critical, and removing > the return -ENODEV makes it work again for me. That's the current > behavior, so perhaps the printk level should just be changed to > KERN_WARNING rather than KERN_ALERT. You are probably right, I shoudl change that. > 2: To compile 2.6.11 cleanly, I needed two hunks from your original > patch 2 (perhaps you're working from a more up-to-date tree than I am? > If so, these are probably already addressed.): > Oh, sorry - when I was pereparing cumulative patch I simply missed this bit. It is still nowhere near the official tree. > > The 'temp' entries make sense, however I'm not sure about the fan_speed > and fan_state entries. From the perspective of how the objects are > ordered, a fan would have 'speed' and 'state' attributes, but a > 'fan_state' attribute wouldn't normally have a fan. Maybe something > along these lines would make more sense from that perspective: > > ./fan/0 > ./fan/0/speed > ./fan/0/state > ./fan/1 > ./fan/1/speed > ./fan/1/state > Yes, as soon as I did attribute array I realized that something like attr_array_group would reflect the structure better... We'll see what can be done. Thank you for your comments and suggestions! -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
