On 07/16/2013 12:57 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Wei, Guenter,
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:48:05 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>> Add bit defines for the status register.
>
> Regarding the subject: for me these are constants, not macros. AFAIK
> the term "macro" refers to defines with parameters only.
How about "Introduce status bits"
>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <w...@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 72
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index 5f30f90..c90037f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -179,6 +179,19 @@ 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 LM90_STATUS_BUSY (1 << 7) /* ADC is converting */
>
> LM90_STATUS_BUSY is never used anywhere so please don't define it.
Ok, I will remove it.
>
>> +
>> +#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)
>> */
>> @@ -1417,6 +1430,36 @@ 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;
>
> It's a bit disappointing to not use the freshly introduced constants.
> That being said I agree it would make the code hard to read, so you can
> leave it as is.
Sorry, I forgot it.
How about to define:
#define LM90_STATUS_MASK 0x7f
#define MAX6696_STATUS2 0xfe
Or since Guenter is for vacation, I can just leave it as is, and wait
him back to talk about below issue.
>
> 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.
>
>> +
>> + 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);
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> {
>> @@ -1515,36 +1558,19 @@ 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) {
>> + if (!lm90_is_tripped(client)) {
>
> You could swap the success and failure cases to avoid this negation.
Yes, I will change it.
>
>> 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);
>> -
>> /*
>> * 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);
>
> You end up reading LM90_REG_R_STATUS, which is not OK. This register
> contains self-clearing bits, so there is no guarantee that the second
> read will return the same value as the first read. You'll have to come
> up with a different approach that reads LM90_REG_R_STATUS only once.
Oh, yes, this is a problem, I didn't noticed it.
How about to use this:
bool lm90_alarms_tripped(*client, *status);
bool lm90_alarms2_tripped(*client, *status2);
So we can read the status only once and pass it.
>
>> +
>> if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT)
>> && (alarms & data->alert_alarms)) {
>> dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Disabling ALERT#\n");
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
