Subject: Re: 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 22:47:03
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:22:28 +0100
Juan RP <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Quentin Garnier suggested to use a new interface attribute to the cpu
device, and I added a cpudevbus attrib to it.
I changed the code in x86/cpu.c to use config_found_ia() as suggested and
now coretemp must be specified as:
"coretemp* at cpudevbus?"
Quentin, is this ok for you? more suggestions?
Juan Romero Pardines - The NetBSD Project
http://plog.xtrarom.org - NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish