On Monday 31 March 2014 21:38:13 David Härdeman wrote: > >The rest looks reasonable, though it could easily have been a separate > >patch (at least as long as the show/store callbacks don't assume the > >presence of the callbacks they use). > > Yes, I wanted to avoid there being more intermediary states than > necessary (i.e. first a read/writable sysfs file, then one that can't be > read/written, then the file disappears...).
Fair enough > Can still respin it on top of your patch if you prefer. It doesn't particularly bother me tbh, so do what you think is best. Cheers James
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
