On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:07:44PM +0530, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> On 09-08-2024 15:46, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > Hi Badal,
> >
> > > > +static int
> > > > +hwm_fan_read(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr, long *val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = ddat->hwmon;
> > > > + struct hwm_fan_info *fi = &ddat->fi;
> > > > + u32 reg_val, pulses, time, time_now;
> > > > + intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> > > > + long rotations;
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (attr != hwmon_fan_input)
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > Using a switch case in rev3 is more logical here. It will also simplify
> > > adding more fan attributes in the future. This is why switch cases are used
> > > in other parts of the file.
> >
> > it was my suggestion and to be honest I would rather prefer it
> > this way. I can understand it if we were expecting more cases in
> > the immediate, like it was in your case.
> >
> > But I wouldn't have an ugly and unreadable one-case-switch in the
> > eventuality that something comes in the future. In that case, we
> > can always convert it.
>
> My rationale for suggesting a switch case is that in the current alignment
> hwm_XX_read() function is designed to handle all possible/supported
> attributes of the XX sensor type.
> With the proposed change, hwm_fan_read() would only manage the
> hwmon_fan_input attribute.
> If a single switch case isn’t preferred, I would recommend creating a helper
> function dedicated to hwmon_fan_input.
>
> hwm_fan_read()
> {
> if (attr == hwmon_fan_input)
> return helper(); //hwmon_fan_input_read()
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
Hi Andi,
If you agree with this, please let me know.
Will send out a v6 accordingly.
Raag
