On 5/14/19 9:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:46:35AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> If the SCMI firmware implementation is reporting values in a scale that >> is different from the HWMON units, we need to scale up or down the value >> according to how far appart they are. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c >> index a80183a488c5..2c7b87edf5aa 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c >> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c >> @@ -18,6 +18,47 @@ struct scmi_sensors { >> const struct scmi_sensor_info **info[hwmon_max]; >> }; >> >> +static inline u64 __pow10(u8 x) >> +{ >> + u64 r = 1; >> + >> + while (x--) >> + r *= 10; >> + >> + return r; >> +} >> + >> +static int scmi_hwmon_scale(const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor, u64 >> *value) >> +{ >> + s8 scale = sensor->scale; >> + u64 f; >> + >> + switch (sensor->type) { >> + case TEMPERATURE_C: >> + case VOLTAGE: >> + case CURRENT: >> + scale += 3; >> + break; >> + case POWER: >> + case ENERGY: >> + scale += 6; >> + break; >> + default: >> + break; >> + } >> + > > I was applying this and wanted to check if we can add a check for scale=0 > here and return early here to above the below check and __pow10(0) ?
Doing an early check for scale == 0 sounds like a good idea,good catch! Feel free to amend the patch directly when you apply it. > > Let me know if you agree. I can fix up. Also I will try to test it on > Juno if firmware behaves correctly :) Great, thanks. -- Florian
