lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/4] hwmon: max31827: Add support for max31828 and max31829
On 10/27/23 08:05, Matyas, Daniel wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Guenter Roeck
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:52 PM
>> To: Matyas, Daniel <Daniel.Matyas@analog.com>
>> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>; Jonathan Corbet
>> <corbet@lwn.net>; linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>> doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] hwmon: max31827: Add support for
>> max31828 and max31829
>>
>> [External]
>>
>> On 10/27/23 06:00, Matyas, Daniel wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> I also don't understand why that would be chip specific. I don't see
>>>> anything along that line in the datasheet.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, wait ... I guess that is supposed to reflect the chip default.
>>>> I don't see why the chip default makes a difference - a well defined
>>>> default must be set either way. Again, there is no guarantee that the
>>>> chip is in its default state when the driver is loaded.
>>>
>>> The well defined default was set in v4, but I deleted it, because the
>> default value in hex for max31827 and max31828 alarm polarity, and
>> max31827 fault queue is 0x0. I had 2 #defines for these values, but you
>> said:
>>> " Since MAX31827_ALRM_POL_LOW is 0, this code doesn't really do
>> anything and just pollutes the code."
>>>
>>> So, I thought I should remove it altogether, since res is set to 0 in the
>> beginning and the default value of these chips (i.e. 0) is implicitly set.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, why are the default values added in this patch and not in the
>>>> previous patch ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In v4 these default values were set in the previous patch.
>>>
>>
>> I asked you (or meant to ask you) to stop overwriting 0 with 0 in a
>> variable. I didn't mean to ask you (if I did) to stop writing the default value
>> into the chip. Sorry if I did; if so, that was a misunderstanding.
>>
>> Guenter
>
> Well, writing the default value into res, would just overwrite 0 with 0. Should I still do it?
>

No, that is not correct. You don't know what is in the chip register.
It may not be the chip default.

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-27 17:52    [W:0.087 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site