Hi Dave,
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:31:13 + David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 10:25 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Why would you expect otherwise (from the C standard):
> >
> > "Unlike the bitwise binary & operator, the && operator guarantees
> > left-to-rig
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - all = all && pm121_register_control(ct, "optical-driver-fan", FAN_OD);
> - all = all && pm121_register_control(ct, "hard-driver-fan", FAN_HD);
> - all = all && pm121_register_control(ct, "cpu-driver-fan", FAN_CPU);
> - all = all && pm
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 10:25 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Why would you expect otherwise (from the C standard):
>
> "Unlike the bitwise binary & operator, the && operator guarantees
> left-to-right evaluation; there is a sequence point after the evaluation
> of the first operand. If the first o
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:02:46 + David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, there's weird shit going on with the sensor/control registration.
> I think GCC is be miscompiling it -- the sequence of
> all = all && pm121_register_control(foo...);
> all = all && pm121_register_c
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 23:14 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 23:02 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, there's weird shit going on with the sensor/control
> > registration.
> > I think GCC is be miscompiling it -- the sequence of
> > all = all && pm121_registe
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 23:02 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Yeah, there's weird shit going on with the sensor/control
> registration.
> I think GCC is be miscompiling it -- the sequence of
> all = all && pm121_register_control(foo...);
> all = all && pm121_register_control(bar...
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 09:13 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 19:35 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 12:55 +0100, Étienne Bersac wrote:
> > > From: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Implement a new driver named windfarm_pm121 which dri
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 19:35 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 12:55 +0100, Étienne Bersac wrote:
> > From: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Implement a new driver named windfarm_pm121 which drive fans on PowerMac
> > 12,1 machine : iMac G5 iSight (rev C) 17" and 20".
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 12:55 +0100, Étienne Bersac wrote:
> From: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Implement a new driver named windfarm_pm121 which drive fans on PowerMac
> 12,1 machine : iMac G5 iSight (rev C) 17" and 20". It's based on
> windfarm_pm81 driver from Benjamin Herrenschmidt.
I
Hi,
Appended a patch which builds without warnings due to struct declared
const. Please review it.
Thanks,
Étienne
Signed-off-by: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Implement fan control for PowerMac 12,1 machines. This needs update to
windfarm_lm75 and windfarm_max6690 sensors drivers in or
Hi,
Thanks for reviewing the patch. I fix most of your comment excepts some
thing which i think are not mine. This is about the global variable. I
wrote this driver willing to be as more consistent with existing
windfarm_pm* drivers. All uses DBG(), global variable, etc. You'll see
that i dropped
On Monday 10 December 2007, Étienne Bersac wrote:
> From: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Here is an updated patch that fix the potential bug, CPU param detection
> failure might not be detected. Please review it.
I didn't find much interesting to complain about, just a few style
issues t
From: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
Here is an updated patch that fix the potential bug, CPU param detection
failure might not be detected. Please review it.
Regards,
Étienne.
Signed-off-by: Étienne Bersac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Implement fan control for PowerMac 12,1 machines. This
Hi,
> + /* First, locate the params for this model */
> + for (i = 0; i < PM121_NUM_CONFIGS; i++) {
> + param = &(pm121_sys_all_params[loop_id][i]);
> + if (param->model_id == pm121_mach_model)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* No params found,
14 matches
Mail list logo
