[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181128102520.GC20723@ulmo>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:25:20 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
Cc: daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com, srikars@...dia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] thermal: tegra: parse sensor id before sensor
register
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 01:44:37PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> Since different platforms may not support all 4
> sensors, so the sensor registration may be failed.
> Add codes to parse dt to find sensor id which
> need to be registered. So that the registration
> can be successful on all platform.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c b/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
> index 375cadbc24cd..79e4628224d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
> @@ -1224,6 +1224,44 @@ static void soctherm_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> tegra_soctherm_throttle(&pdev->dev);
> }
>
> +static bool tegra_soctherm_find_sensor_id(int sensor_id)
> +{
> + int id;
You might want to make this and the sensor_id parameter unsigned int to
match the signedness of the ID in the specifier arguments and the sensor
groups.
Thierry
> + bool ret = false;
> + struct of_phandle_args sensor_specs;
> + struct device_node *np, *sensor_np;
> +
> + np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "thermal-zones");
> + if (!np)
> + return ret;
> +
> + sensor_np = of_get_next_child(np, NULL);
> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, sensor_np) {
Aren't we leaking np here? I think we need of_node_put() after
of_get_next_child() to make sure the reference to the "thermal-zones"
node is properly released.
> + if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(sensor_np, "thermal-sensors",
> + "#thermal-sensor-cells",
> + 0, &sensor_specs))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (sensor_specs.args_count != 1) {
> + WARN(sensor_specs.args_count > 1,
> + "%s: wrong cells in sensor specifier %d\n",
> + sensor_specs.np->name, sensor_specs.args_count);
> + continue;
This is odd. You check for args_count != 1 but then WARN on args_count >
1. Shouldn't both of these conditions be the same?
> + } else {
Also, since the above has "continue;", we don't really need the else
block.
> + id = sensor_specs.args[0];
> + if (sensor_id == id) {
It might not be worth to store the ID in a separate variable, we could
just do:
if (sensor_specs.args[0] == sensor_id)
Thierry
> + ret = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + of_node_put(np);
> + of_node_put(sensor_np);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static const struct of_device_id tegra_soctherm_of_match[] = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_124_SOC
> {
> @@ -1365,13 +1403,15 @@ static int tegra_soctherm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> zone->sg = soc->ttgs[i];
> zone->ts = tegra;
>
> + if (!tegra_soctherm_find_sensor_id(soc->ttgs[i]->id))
> + continue;
> z = devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&pdev->dev,
I'd would prefer a blank line after the if block for readability.
> soc->ttgs[i]->id, zone,
> &tegra_of_thermal_ops);
> if (IS_ERR(z)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(z);
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register sensor: %d\n",
> - err);
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register sensor %s: %d\n",
> + soc->ttgs[i]->name, err);
> goto disable_clocks;
> }
>
> @@ -1434,6 +1474,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused soctherm_resume(struct device *dev)
> struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
>
> tz = tegra->thermctl_tzs[soc->ttgs[i]->id];
> + if (!tz)
> + continue;
> err = tegra_soctherm_set_hwtrips(dev, soc->ttgs[i], tz);
Same here:
if (!tz)
continue;
err = ...
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists