lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] hwmon: (lm90) use macro defines for the status bit
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:33:26PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:33:22 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:57:27PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Unrelated to this patch, but Guenter, I am worried about the MAX6696
> > > handling here. I realize that I am the one who accepted your code, but
> > > now it looks wrong. Specifically:
> > > * We check for (status2 & 0xfe) i.e. 7 alarm bits, but the code below
> > > only reports 2 alarms bits. So if any of the 5 other alarm bits in
> > > STATUS2 are, we may return true (chip is tripped) but not print the
> > > cause.
> > > * At least bits 1 and 2 of STATUS 2 fit totally fine in the driver as
> > > it currently exists, so I can't think of any reason for not handling
> > > them. Why are we not? Ideally we should print a message for every
> > > alarm bit so that we never return "true" without printing a message.
> > > Even though OT2 limits aren't handled by the driver...
> > > * If you think this piece of code shouldn't deal with OT/THERM limits
> > > because they do not trigger an SMBus alarm, this can be discussed,
> > > but all chips should be handled the same in this respect then.
> > > * Why in the first place is max6696's data->alert_alarms set to 0x187c
> > > and not 0x1c7c? Including 1OPEN but not 2OPEN makes no sense.
> >
> > I am about to leave for vacation, so this will have to wait for a couple of
> > weeks. I'll look at it after I am back.
>
> Are you back now? ;-)
>
Yes, only I completely forgot about this :-). I'll add it to my task list.

Guenter


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-30 17:21    [W:0.138 / U:5.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site