Subject: Attaching children to cpu (e.g coretemp* at cpu?) ?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Juan RP <email@example.com>
Date: 10/29/2007 21:22:28
a few people prefered to make coretemp(4) a real autoconf(9) driver
rather than an option, I've heard complaints about options being
unhelpful for LKMs for example.
Currently we do have "options INTEL_CORETEMP" and registers a driver
per struct cpu_info pointer via identcpu.
I've implemented "coretemp* at cpu?". Do we want to use this approach
rather than an option?
IMHO it's more logical to me to attach coretemp(4) at cpu, because there's
a sensor per cpu.
Juan Romero Pardines - The NetBSD Project
http://plog.xtrarom.org - NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish