lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] hwmon: (lm90) Define status bits
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:41:13PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Wei,
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:18:24 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> > Add bit defines for the status register. And add a function
> > lm90_is_tripped() which will read status register and return
> > tripped or not, then lm90_alert can call it directly, and in the
> > future the IRQ thread also can use it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> > index cdff742..1da2eff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> > @@ -179,6 +179,18 @@ enum chips { lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, max6659, adt7461, max6680,
> > #define LM90_HAVE_TEMP3 (1 << 6) /* 3rd temperature sensor */
> > #define LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT (1 << 7) /* Broken alert */
> >
> > +/* LM90 status */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_LTHRM (1 << 0) /* local THERM limit tripped */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_RTHRM (1 << 1) /* remote THERM limit tripped */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_OPEN (1 << 2) /* remote is an open circuit */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_RLOW (1 << 3) /* remote low temp limit tripped */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_RHIGH (1 << 4) /* remote high temp limit tripped */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_LLOW (1 << 5) /* local low temp limit tripped */
> > +#define LM90_STATUS_LHIGH (1 << 6) /* local high temp limit tripped */
> > +
> > +#define MAX6696_STATUS2_RLOW (1 << 3) /* remote2 low temp limit tripped */
> > +#define MAX6696_STATUS2_RHIGH (1 << 4) /* remote2 high temp limit tripped */
> > +
> > /*
> > * Driver data (common to all clients)
> > */
> > @@ -1391,6 +1403,36 @@ static void lm90_init_client(struct i2c_client *client)
> > i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_CONFIG1, config);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool lm90_is_tripped(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > + struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > + u8 status, status2 = 0;
> > +
> > + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_STATUS, &status);
> > +
> > + if (data->kind == max6696)
> > + lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6696_REG_R_STATUS2, &status2);
> > +
> > + if ((status & 0x7f) == 0 && (status2 & 0xfe) == 0)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (status & (LM90_STATUS_LLOW | LM90_STATUS_LHIGH | LM90_STATUS_LTHRM))
> > + dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 1);
> > + if (status & (LM90_STATUS_RLOW | LM90_STATUS_RHIGH | LM90_STATUS_RTHRM))
> > + dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 2);
> > + if (status & LM90_STATUS_OPEN)
> > + dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > + "temp%d diode open, please check!\n", 2);
> > +
> > + if (status2 & (MAX6696_STATUS2_RLOW | MAX6696_STATUS2_RHIGH))
> > + dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 3);
> > +

I am also a bit concerned about the misleading function name.
I would expect something like "is_tripped" to return true or false,
not to dump log messages to the console.

Guenter

> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> > {
> > @@ -1489,36 +1531,17 @@ static int lm90_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >
> > static void lm90_alert(struct i2c_client *client, unsigned int flag)
> > {
> > - struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > - u8 config, alarms, alarms2 = 0;
> > -
> > - lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_STATUS, &alarms);
> > -
> > - if (data->kind == max6696)
> > - lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6696_REG_R_STATUS2, &alarms2);
> > -
> > - if ((alarms & 0x7f) == 0 && (alarms2 & 0xfe) == 0) {
> > - dev_info(&client->dev, "Everything OK\n");
> > - } else {
> > - if (alarms & 0x61)
> > - dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 1);
> > - if (alarms & 0x1a)
> > - dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 2);
> > - if (alarms & 0x04)
> > - dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > - "temp%d diode open, please check!\n", 2);
> > -
> > - if (alarms2 & 0x18)
> > - dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 3);
> > -
> > + if (lm90_is_tripped(client)) {
>
> You are reading LM90_REG_R_STATUS here...
>
> > /*
> > * Disable ALERT# output, because these chips don't implement
> > * SMBus alert correctly; they should only hold the alert line
> > * low briefly.
> > */
> > + struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > + u8 config, alarms;
> > +
> > + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_STATUS, &alarms);
>
> ... and here again. I already complained about this in my previous
> review of this patch, and you were supposed to address it, but you did
> not. As a result I am still not happy with this patch and I can't apply
> it, sorry.
>
> > +
> > if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT)
> > && (alarms & data->alert_alarms)) {
> > dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Disabling ALERT#\n");
> > @@ -1526,6 +1549,8 @@ static void lm90_alert(struct i2c_client *client, unsigned int flag)
> > i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_CONFIG1,
> > config | 0x80);
> > }
> > + } else {
> > + dev_info(&client->dev, "Everything OK\n");
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-30 18:21    [W:0.055 / U:40.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site