On 02/19/2013 01:22 PM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 08:30 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> Register the remote sensor to the thermal framework.
>> It can support to show the temperature and read/write threshold.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi | 1 +
>> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 182
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Making changes to a driver *and* a board file in the same patch? I think
> this should be separated, and the board file change preferably squashed
> with the first patch of this series, and moved right after this one.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
>> index 15ad1ad..3f6ab89 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
>> @@ -279,6 +279,7 @@
>> reg = <0x4c>;
>> interrupt-parent = <&gpio>;
>> interrupts = <226 0x08>; /* gpio PCC2 */
>> + #sensor-cells = <1>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index de5a476..0abdedc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@
>> #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/thermal.h>
>>
>> /*
>> * Addresses to scan
>> @@ -182,6 +183,15 @@ enum chips { lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657,
>> max6659, adt7461, max6680,
>> #define LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT (1 << 7) /* Broken alert
>> */
>>
>> /*
>> + * Thermal framework
>> + */
>> +enum lm90_thresholds {
>> + LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS = 0, /* threshold 0: low limits */
>> + LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS, /* threshold 1: high limits */
>> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> * Driver data (common to all clients)
>> */
>>
>> @@ -377,6 +387,9 @@ struct lm90_data {
>> s16 temp11[TEMP11_REG_NUM];
>> u8 temp_hyst;
>> u16 alarms; /* bitvector (upper 8 bits for max6695/96) */
>> +
>> + struct thermal_sensor *ts_remote;
>> + struct thermal_sensor *ts_local;
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -1493,12 +1506,151 @@ static irqreturn_t lm90_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>>
>> +static int lm90_read_remote_temp(struct thermal_sensor *ts, long *temp)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> +
>> + _show_temp11(dev, TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP, (int *)temp);
>
> As Guenter pointed, this might break. Since you introduced _show_temp11
> in a previous patch, you should revise it to take a long * as third
> argument (or even better, return a long). Or if you cannot do that for
> some reason, use a temporary int and affect temp properly (*temp =
> temp_int).
yes, the pointer will cause problems here.
I will follow Guenter suggestion to return the value simply for
_show_temp11 and _show_temp8
>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lm90_read_remote_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int
>> th_index,
>> + long *val)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> + int index;
>> +
>> + switch (th_index) {
>> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* remote low limit */
>> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW;
>> + break;
>> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* remote high limit */
>> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(dev, "read remote threshold failed.\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + _show_temp11(dev, index, (int *)val);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lm90_write_remote_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int
>> th_index,
>> + long val)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> + int nr, index;
>> +
>> + switch (th_index) {
>> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* remote low limit */
>> + nr = NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW;
>> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW;
>> + break;
>> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* remote high limit */
>> + nr = NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_HIGH;
>> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(dev, "write remote threshold failed.\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + _set_temp11(dev, nr, index, val);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct thermal_sensor_ops remote_ops = {
>> + .get_temp = lm90_read_remote_temp,
>> + .get_threshold = lm90_read_remote_threshold,
>> + .set_threshold = lm90_write_remote_threshold,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int lm90_read_local_temp(struct thermal_sensor *ts, long *temp)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> +
>> + _show_temp11(dev, TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP, (int *)temp);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lm90_read_local_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int
>> th_index,
>> + long *val)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> + int index;
>> +
>> + switch (th_index) {
>> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* local low limit */
>> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW;
>> + break;
>> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* local high limit */
>> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH;
>> + break;
>
> I think the comments are unneeded here, the macro name should be
> explicit enough.
OK.
>
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(dev, "read local threshold failed.\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + _show_temp8(dev, index, (int *)val);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lm90_write_local_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int
>> th_index,
>> + long val)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> + int index;
>> +
>> + switch (th_index) {
>> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* local low limit */
>> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW;
>> + break;
>> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
>> + /* local high limit */
>> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(dev, "write local threshold failed.\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + _set_temp8(dev, index, val);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct thermal_sensor_ops local_ops = {
>> + .get_temp = lm90_read_local_temp,
>> + .get_threshold = lm90_read_local_threshold,
>> + .set_threshold = lm90_write_local_threshold,
>> +};
>> +
>> static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> {
>> struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(dev->parent);
>> struct lm90_data *data;
>> + struct node_args np_args;
>> int err;
>>
>> data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(struct lm90_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> @@ -1576,12 +1728,38 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> "lm90", data);
>> if (err < 0) {
>> dev_err(dev, "cannot request interrupt\n");
>> - goto exit_remove_files;
>> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + np_args.np = dev->of_node;
>> + np_args.index = 0;
>> + data->ts_remote = thermal_sensor_register("lm90_remote",
>> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS,
>> + &np_args,
>> + &remote_ops, client);
>> + if (IS_ERR(data->ts_remote)) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "cannot register sensor to thermal framework\n");
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>
> When don't you return the error code provided by
> thermal_sensor_register, e.g. err = PTR_ERR(data->ts_remote) ?
I didn't consider it, I will change it.
>
>> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
>> + }
>> +
>> + np_args.index = 1;
>> + data->ts_local = thermal_sensor_register("lm90_local",
>> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS,
>> + &np_args,
>> + &local_ops, client);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR(data->ts_local)) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "cannot register sensor to thermal framework\n");
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>
> Same thing here.
>
>> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>>
>> +exit_unregister_hwmon:
>> + hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
>> exit_remove_files:
>> lm90_remove_files(client, data);
>> exit_restore:
>> @@ -1594,6 +1772,8 @@ static int lm90_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>
>> free_irq(client->irq, data);
>> + thermal_sensor_unregister(data->ts_remote);
>> + thermal_sensor_unregister(data->ts_local);
>
> Ideally you would unregister your sensors in the reverse order they have
> been registered, but I'm being picky here.
Yes, it's better in reverse order.
I really appreciate you reviewing my patches so carefully :)
Wei.
>
> Alex.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
