On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:58:29PM GMT, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:57:20AM +0530, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
> > On 10-09-2024 10:07, Gupta, Anshuman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +hwm_temp_read(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr, long *val) {
> > > > > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = ddat->hwmon;
> > > > > + intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> > > > > + u32 reg_val;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + switch (attr) {
> > > > > + case hwmon_temp_input:
> > > > > + with_intel_runtime_pm(ddat->uncore->rpm, wakeref)
> > > > > + reg_val = intel_uncore_read(ddat->uncore, hwmon-
> > > > > rg.pkg_temp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* HW register value is in degrees, convert to millidegrees. */
> > > > > + *val = REG_FIELD_GET(TEMP_MASK, reg_val) *
> > > > MILLIDEGREE_PER_DEGREE;
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + default:
> > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand this love for single case switches.
> > > IMHO this is kept to keep symmetry in this file to make it more readable.
> > > Also it readable to return error using default case, which is followed in this entire file.
> > I agree on this. Let’s stick to file-wide approach and ensure it is applied
> > to the fan_input attribute as well.
>
> Since fan patch is already on its way to drm-next, you can submit a fix if you wish.
> Although I don't agree with it, I have no objections.
nack! :-)
It doesn't make much sense to send a controvertial patch that
refactors good working code to other good (some would say worse)
working code without any functional change.
Thanks,
Andi
