linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] hwmon: scmi: Scale values to target desired HWMON units

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190514170050.GB20819@e107155-lin>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 18:00:50 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "open list:HARDWARE MONITORING" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] hwmon: scmi: Scale values to target desired HWMON
 units

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 09:58:06AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 09:44:02AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > On 5/14/19 9:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:46:35AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > >> If the SCMI firmware implementation is reporting values in a scale that
> > >> is different from the HWMON units, we need to scale up or down the value
> > >> according to how far appart they are.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> > >> index a80183a488c5..2c7b87edf5aa 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> > >> @@ -18,6 +18,47 @@ struct scmi_sensors {
> > >>  	const struct scmi_sensor_info **info[hwmon_max];
> > >>  };
> > >>
> > >> +static inline u64 __pow10(u8 x)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	u64 r = 1;
> > >> +
> > >> +	while (x--)
> > >> +		r *= 10;
> > >> +
> > >> +	return r;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +static int scmi_hwmon_scale(const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor, u64 *value)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	s8 scale = sensor->scale;
> > >> +	u64 f;
> > >> +
> > >> +	switch (sensor->type) {
> > >> +	case TEMPERATURE_C:
> > >> +	case VOLTAGE:
> > >> +	case CURRENT:
> > >> +		scale += 3;
> > >> +		break;
> > >> +	case POWER:
> > >> +	case ENERGY:
> > >> +		scale += 6;
> > >> +		break;
> > >> +	default:
> > >> +		break;
> > >> +	}
> > >> +
> > >
> > > I was applying this and wanted to check if we can add a check for scale=0
> > > here and return early here to above the below check and __pow10(0) ?
> >
> > Doing an early check for scale == 0 sounds like a good idea,good catch!
> > Feel free to amend the patch directly when you apply it.
> >
>
> Ok with me. Just make it == 0 :-).
>

Thanks Guenter and Florian for quick response, done now.

--
Regards,
Sudeep