Hello Gregory & Baruch,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:05:43 +0100
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -184,9 +214,9 @@ static int armada_get_temp(struct
> > thermal_zone_device *thermal, div = priv->data->coef_div;
> >
> > if (priv->data->inverted)
> > - *temp = ((m * reg) - b) / div;
> > + *temp = ((m * sample) - b) / div;
> > else
> > - *temp = (b - (m * reg)) / div;
> > + *temp = (b - (m * sample)) / div;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -237,6 +267,19 @@ static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada380_data = { .inverted = true,
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct armada_thermal_data armada_ap806_data = {
> > + .is_valid = armada_is_valid,
> > + .init_sensor = armada_ap806_init_sensor,
> > + .is_valid_bit = BIT(16),
> > + .temp_shift = 0,
> > + .temp_mask = 0x3ff,
> > + .coef_b = -150000,
>
> Don't you expect any side effect by storing a negative value in a
> unsigned variable?
That is a fair question, I did not spot that.
As other values are really close to 2^32 I don't know what is the best
option for us in this case. Should I:
- don't care?
- use signed values? (dangerous IMHO)
- use a union with a signed and an unsigned value? (problem moved to
->get_temp())
Thanks for your input.
Miquèl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
