| 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: <20130712152615.23464a6b@endymion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:26:15 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
Cc: <linux@...ck-us.net>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<lm-sensors@...sensors.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common
codes
Hi Wei, Guenter,
Guenter, thanks for reviewing the previous version of this patch.
Wei, thanks for incorporating review feedback and posting updated
patches so quickly, this is very appreciated, even though I'm too busy
these days to be that fast on my end, sorry about that.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:48:04 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> Split set&show temp codes as common functions, so we can use it directly when
> implement linux thermal framework.
Can I see a recent version of the code which will need this change? It
makes no sense to apply this first part which makes the code more
complex with no benefit, without the second part which needs it, so
they should be applied together or not at all.
One thing I am a little worried about (but maybe I'm wrong) is that I
seem to understand you want to register every LM90-like chip as both a
hwmon device and two thermal devices. I seem to recall that every
thermal device is also exposed automatically as a virtual hwmon
device, is that correct? If so we will be presenting the same values
twice to libsensors, which would be confusing.
> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
The code changes look good, however I have one suggestion for
improvement (plus a minor cleanup request):
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> index 8eeb141..5f30f90 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> (...)
> -static ssize_t set_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> - const char *buf, size_t count)
> (...)
> +static void write_temp8(struct device *dev, int index, long val)
> {
> static const u8 reg[8] = {
> LM90_REG_W_LOCAL_LOW,
> @@ -737,60 +742,73 @@ static ssize_t set_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> MAX6659_REG_W_REMOTE_EMERG,
> };
>
> - struct sensor_device_attribute *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr(devattr);
> struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> - int nr = attr->index;
> - long val;
> - int err;
> -
> - err = kstrtol(buf, 10, &val);
> - if (err < 0)
> - return err;
>
> /* +16 degrees offset for temp2 for the LM99 */
> - if (data->kind == lm99 && attr->index == 3)
> + if (data->kind == lm99 && index == 3)
> val -= 16000;
>
> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> - data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_u8_adt7461(data, val);
> + data->temp8[index] = temp_to_u8_adt7461(data, val);
> else if (data->kind == max6646)
> - data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_u8(val);
> + data->temp8[index] = temp_to_u8(val);
> else
> - data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_s8(val);
> + data->temp8[index] = temp_to_s8(val);
>
> - lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, nr >= 6);
> - i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[nr], data->temp8[nr]);
> + lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, index >= 6);
> + i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[index], data->temp8[index]);
This write could fail. So far the lm90 driver has failed to handle
register write errors at all, and I will take the blame for that. But
if we want to integrate properly with the thermal subsystem, I suspect
we will have to properly report errors. So it might be the right time
to catch and return write errors here. Then set_temp8() below could
return it to user-space (either in this patch or in a separate patch,
as you prefer.)
And then as a next step, lm90_select_remote_channel should return
errors as they happen as well, so that they can be transmitted to the
caller.
> lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, 0);
>
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t set_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct sensor_device_attribute *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr(devattr);
> + int index = attr->index;
> + long val;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = kstrtol(buf, 10, &val);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + write_temp8(dev, index, val);
> +
> return count;
> }
>
> -static ssize_t show_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> - char *buf)
> +static int read_temp11(struct device *dev, int index)
> {
> - struct sensor_device_attribute_2 *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(devattr);
> struct lm90_data *data = lm90_update_device(dev);
> int temp;
>
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> - temp = temp_from_u16_adt7461(data, data->temp11[attr->index]);
> + temp = temp_from_u16_adt7461(data, data->temp11[index]);
> else if (data->kind == max6646)
> - temp = temp_from_u16(data->temp11[attr->index]);
> + temp = temp_from_u16(data->temp11[index]);
> else
> - temp = temp_from_s16(data->temp11[attr->index]);
> + temp = temp_from_s16(data->temp11[index]);
>
> /* +16 degrees offset for temp2 for the LM99 */
> - if (data->kind == lm99 && attr->index <= 2)
> + if (data->kind == lm99 && index <= 2)
There's a doubled space on this line. It isn't added by your patch, it
was already there before, but please fix it while you're here.
> temp += 16000;
>
> - return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", temp);
> + return temp;
> }
>
> -static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> - const char *buf, size_t count)
> (...)
> +static void write_temp11(struct device *dev, int nr, int index, long val)
Here too I would suggest returning errors from the I2C layer, and
handling them in set_temp11() now or later.
> {
> struct {
> u8 high;
> @@ -804,17 +822,8 @@ static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> { LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_HIGHH, LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_HIGHL, 1 }
> };
>
> - struct sensor_device_attribute_2 *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(devattr);
> struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> - int nr = attr->nr;
> - int index = attr->index;
> - long val;
> - int err;
> -
> - err = kstrtol(buf, 10, &val);
> - if (err < 0)
> - return err;
>
> /* +16 degrees offset for temp2 for the LM99 */
> if (data->kind == lm99 && index <= 2)
> @@ -839,6 +848,23 @@ static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, 0);
>
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct sensor_device_attribute_2 *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(devattr);
> + int nr = attr->nr;
> + int index = attr->index;
> + long val;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = kstrtol(buf, 10, &val);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + write_temp11(dev, nr, index, val);
> +
> return count;
> }
>
--
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