linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 02/10] thermal: tegra: combine sensor group-related data

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160113143123.GB2588@ulmo>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:31:23 +0100
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
Cc:	rui.zhang@...el.com, mikko.perttunen@...si.fi,
	swarren@...dotorg.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 02/10] thermal: tegra: combine sensor group-related
 data

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:58:41PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> Combine sensor group-related data structures into struct
> tegra_tsensor_group. This provides a single location for
> sensor group data storage.
> More sensor group data will be added in subsequent patches.
> 
> Get rid of T124-specific PDIV/HOTSPOT hack.
> tegra-soctherm.c contained a hack to set the SENSOR_PDIV and
> SENSOR_HOTSPOT_OFFSET registers - it just did two writes of
> T124-specific opaque values.  Convert these into a form that can be
> substituted on a per-chip basis, and into structure fields that have
> at least some independent meaning.

This reads as two completely separate commit messages. Should the patch
be split up to separate out the two logical changes?

> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/tegra/tegra_soctherm.c b/drivers/thermal/tegra/tegra_soctherm.c
[...]
> +static struct tegra_tsensor_group tegra124_tsensor_group_cpu = {
[...]
> +};
> +
> +static struct tegra_tsensor_group tegra124_tsensor_group_gpu = {
[...]
> +};
> +
> +static struct tegra_tsensor_group tegra124_tsensor_group_pll = {
[...]
> +};
> +
> +static struct tegra_tsensor_group tegra124_tsensor_group_mem = {
[...]
> +};
> +
> +static struct tegra_tsensor_group *
> +tegra124_tsensor_groups[TEGRA124_SOCTHERM_SENSOR_NUM] = {
[...]
>  };

These look like they should all be static const.

> @@ -168,7 +268,7 @@ struct tegra_soctherm {
>  	struct clk *clock_soctherm;
>  	void __iomem *regs;
>  
> -	struct thermal_zone_device *thermctl_tzs[4];
> +	struct thermal_zone_device *thermctl_tzs[TEGRA124_SOCTHERM_SENSOR_NUM];
>  };

Does it make sense to use macros here for the number of zones? I suspect
that since you do parameterize the Tegra210 support that will be added
later on will have a different maximum number, in which case macros will
not work very well.

But perhaps I'll see how you solved that problem in a later patch.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)