On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:24:23PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > There is nothing critically wrong to read these two attributes > > without having a is_enabled() check at this point. But reading > > the MASK_ENABLE register would clear the CVRF bit according to > > the datasheet. So it'd be safer to fence for disabled channels > > in order to add pm runtime feature. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > > index d61688f04594..3e98b59108ee 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ static int ina3221_read_curr(struct device *dev, u32 > > attr, > > return 0; > > case hwmon_curr_crit_alarm: > > case hwmon_curr_max_alarm: > > + if (!ina3221_is_enabled(ina, channel)) > > + return -ENODATA; > > Makes sense, but can you check what the sensors command does with this ?
Not quite understanding the question. Do you mean the user case causing the race condition -- wiping out the CVRF bit? > If it bails out I'd rather have the code return 0 and no error (after all, > the sensor is disabled, so any alarm would be bogus). That's true. Since they are alert flags, should return 0. I will fix it. Thanks
