| 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: <51E39114.505@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:05:08 +0800
From: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC: "linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common codes
On 07/12/2013 09:26 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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.
In my RFC patches, there had many codes about thermal fw, which need
this patch, so I put them together.
And now I split the RFC patches, this series is preparing to use the
thermal fw.
As you said, I want to register lm90 as the thermal zone device, it need
to hook some callback, such as .get_temp. if apply this patch, I can
write the .get_temp simply, something like:
+static int lm90_read_temp2_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thz,
unsigned long *temp)
+{
+ struct lm90_data *data = thz->devdata;
+ struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(data->hwmon_dev->parent);
+ struct device *dev = &client->dev;+
+
+ *temp = (long)read_temp11(dev, TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct thermal_zone_device_ops remote_ops = {
+ .get_temp = lm90_read_temp2_temp,
+};
If without this patch, I have to rewrite the lm90_read_temp2_temp(),
which almost same as the show_temp11(), I think it's not good. When use
this patch and following 3/3 patch, the code will be more readable and
clear.
Anyway, if you want, I can send this patch as a separate one. :)
>
> 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.)
Ok, I will add error handler in my next version.
>
> 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.
Oh, you are so carefully, I will fix it :)
>
>> 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;
>> }
>>
>
--
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