On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:48:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 11:45:25AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Add hwmon support for fan1_input attribute, which will expose fan speed
> > in RPM. With this in place we can monitor fan speed using lm-sensors tool.
> >
> > $ sensors
> > i915-pci-0300
> > Adapter: PCI adapter
> > in0: 653.00 mV
> > fan1: 3833 RPM
> > power1: N/A (max = 43.00 W)
> > energy1: 32.02 kJ
>
> > v2:
> > - Add mutex protection
> > - Handle overflow
> > - Add ABI documentation
> > - Aesthetic adjustments (Riana)
> >
> > v3:
> > - Declare rotations as "long" and drop redundant casting
> > - Change date and version in ABI documentation
> > - Add commenter name in changelog (Riana)
> >
> > v4:
> > - Fix wakeref leak
> > - Drop switch case and simplify hwm_fan_xx() (Andi)
>
> I do not understand why we pollute Git history with changelogs, but it's
> probably the ugly atavism in DRM workflow.
Yeah I'm still getting used to it.
Also welcome back, hope it's not a bad start ;)
> ...
>
> > +hwm_fan_is_visible(const struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr)
> > +{
> > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = ddat->hwmon;
> > +
> > + return attr == hwmon_fan_input &&
> > + i915_mmio_reg_valid(hwmon->rg.fan_speed) ? 0444 : 0;
>
> Not sure why ternary here, it's not well readable in my opinion.
>
> if (attr == hwmon_fan_input && i915_mmio_reg_valid(hwmon->rg.fan_speed))
> return 0444;
>
> return 0;
>
> looks better, no?
Andi had a preference for single return statement.
I'm personally fine with both.
> ...
>
> > + /*
> > + * HW register value is accumulated count of pulses from
> > + * PWM fan with the scale of 2 pulses per rotation.
> > + */
> > + rotations = pulses >> 1;
>
> In accordance with the comment the
>
> rotations = pulses / 2;
>
> looks better.
>
> ...
>
> (1)
>
> > + time = time_now - fi->time_prev;
> > +
>
> I think location of this blank line is better at (1) above.
>
> > + if (unlikely(!time)) {
> > + ret = -EAGAIN;
> > + goto exit;
> > + }
Sure.
> ...
>
> > + /* Convert to minutes for calculating RPM */
> > + *val = DIV_ROUND_UP(rotations * (60 * MSEC_PER_SEC), time);
>
> Have you considered to keep jiffies in the fi and use something from jiffies.h
> here? To me it feels like we multiply and divide when it can be avoided.
> Please, think about it (I haven't checked myself, just an idea to share).
Will explore.
Raag
