On 16/04/2018 14:49, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 02:41:48 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 16/04/2018 14:35, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 16, 2018 02:16:56 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2018 12:11, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>>> From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprow...@samsung.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> tmu_read() in case of Exynos4210 might return error for out of bound
>>>>> values. Current code ignores such value, what leads to reporting critical
>>>>> temperature value. Add proper error code propagation to exynos_get_temp()
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> For me the comment in the function exynos4210_tmu_read
>>>>
>>>> /* "temp_code" should range between 75 and 175 */
>>>>
>>>> ... is strange. I would double check this assertion before dealing with
>>>> the error value.
>>>
>>> static int exynos4210_tmu_read(struct exynos_tmu_data *data)
>>> {
>>>     int ret = readb(data->base + EXYNOS_TMU_REG_CURRENT_TEMP);
>>>
>>>     /* "temp_code" should range between 75 and 175 */
>>>     return (ret < 75 || ret > 175) ? -ENODATA : ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> But I don't get why it *should* ?
> 
> Because of hardware design.
> 
>> Shouldn't be the same with the 4412, it seems having the same sensor, no?
> 
> Probably same limitations apply to all SoCs (Exynos4412 has very similar
> sensor) but the driver currently lacks the needed checks for them (it is
> on TODO but other things have higher priority).


I understand. Why the other boards are not reporting a critical value?




-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Reply via email to