| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100913213030.3573aab7@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:30:30 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] hwmon: (lm90) Introduce device feature bits
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:25:45 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> index aafed28..a81a053 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,11 @@ enum chips { lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, adt7461, max6680, max6646,
> /*
> * Device flags
> */
> -#define LM90_FLAG_ADT7461_EXT 0x01 /* ADT7461 extended mode */
> +#define LM90_FLAG_ADT7461_EXT 0x01 /* ADT7461 extended mode */
> +/* Device features */
> +#define LM90_HAVE_OFFSET 0x02 /* temperature offset register */
> +#define LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT 0x04 /* extended local temperature */
> +#define LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT 0x08 /* extended remote limit */
Please always use a space, not a tab, between #define and the symbol
name.
When defining bit values, I suggest using the following notation:
#define LM90_HAVE_OFFSET (1 << 2) /* temperature offset register */
#define LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT (1 << 3) /* extended local temperature */
It is more immediately obvious that you have a bit vector.
>
> /*
> * Functions declaration
> @@ -462,17 +466,16 @@ static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_u16_adt7461(data, val);
> - else if (data->kind == max6657 || data->kind == max6680)
> - data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_s8(val) << 8;
> else if (data->kind == max6646)
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_u8(val) << 8;
> + else if (!(data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT))
It would be more efficient to swap the last two statements to avoid the
negation.
> + data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_s8(val) << 8;
> else
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_s16(val);
>
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[(nr - 1) * 2],
> data->temp11[nr] >> 8);
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> - && data->kind != max6646)
> + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT)
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[(nr - 1) * 2 + 1],
> data->temp11[nr] & 0xff);
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> @@ -847,6 +850,17 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *new_client,
> break;
> }
>
> + /* Set chip capabilities */
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646)
> + data->flags |= LM90_HAVE_OFFSET;
> +
> + if (data->kind == max6657 || data->kind == max6646)
> + data->flags |= LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT;
> +
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646
> + && data->kind != max6680)
> + data->flags |= LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT;
> +
> /* Initialize the LM90 chip */
> lm90_init_client(new_client);
>
> @@ -859,7 +873,7 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *new_client,
> if (err)
> goto exit_remove_files;
> }
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646) {
> + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET) {
> err = device_create_file(&new_client->dev,
> &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr);
> if (err)
> @@ -925,7 +939,7 @@ static int lm90_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
> sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &lm90_group);
> device_remove_file(&client->dev, &dev_attr_pec);
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646)
> + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET)
> device_remove_file(&client->dev,
> &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr);
>
> @@ -1019,7 +1033,7 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_CRIT, &data->temp8[3]);
> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_TCRIT_HYST, &data->temp_hyst);
>
> - if (data->kind == max6657 || data->kind == max6646) {
> + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT) {
> lm90_read16(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMP,
> MAX6657_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMPL,
> &data->temp11[4]);
> @@ -1033,22 +1047,20 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
>
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWH, &h) == 0) {
> data->temp11[1] = h << 8;
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> - && data->kind != max6646
> + if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT)
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWL,
> &l) == 0)
> data->temp11[1] |= l;
> }
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHH, &h) == 0) {
> data->temp11[2] = h << 8;
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> - && data->kind != max6646
> + if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT)
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHL,
> &l) == 0)
> data->temp11[2] |= l;
> }
>
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646) {
> + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET) {
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_OFFSH,
> &h) == 0
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_OFFSL,
Other than these minor implementation details, the changes look good, I
like them.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists