On 11/28/22 23:08, Billy Tsai wrote:
On 2022/11/23, 11:45 PM, "Guenter Roeck" <groeck7@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On 11/22/22 22:16, Billy Tsai wrote: > > +The driver provides the following sensor accesses in sysfs: > > +=============== ======= ===================================================== > > +fanX_input ro provide current fan rotation value in RPM as reported > > + by the fan to the device. > > +fanX_div rw Fan divisor: Supported value are power of 4 (1, 4, 16 > > + 64, ... 4194304) > The code doesn't support 1. The code can support 1.
Sorry, leftover from when I misread the code and thought it didn't.
> The existence of a status register makes me wonder what is in there. > Does the controller report any errors ? If so, it might be worthwile > adding attribute(s) for it. > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + if (!(val & TACH_ASPEED_FULL_MEASUREMENT)) > > + return 0; > > + rpm = aspeed_tach_val_to_rpm(priv, fan_tach_ch, > > + val & TACH_ASPEED_VALUE_MASK); > > + > > + return rpm; The status register is the TACH_ASPEED_FULL_MEASUREMENT which is used to indicate that the controller doesn't detect the change in tach pin for a long time. > > +static void aspeed_create_fan_tach_channel(struct aspeed_tach_data *priv, > > + u32 tach_ch) > > +{ > > + priv->tach_present[tach_ch] = true; > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].limited_inverse = 0; > > + regmap_write_bits(priv->regmap, TACH_ASPEED_CTRL(tach_ch), > > + TACH_ASPEED_INVERS_LIMIT, > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].limited_inverse ? > > + TACH_ASPEED_INVERS_LIMIT : > > + 0); > > + > What is the purpose of the above code ? limited_inverse is always 0. > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].tach_debounce = DEBOUNCE_3_CLK; > > + regmap_write_bits(priv->regmap, TACH_ASPEED_CTRL(tach_ch), > > + TACH_ASPEED_DEBOUNCE_MASK, > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].tach_debounce > > + << TACH_ASPEED_DEBOUNCE_BIT); > > + > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].tach_edge = F2F_EDGES; > > + regmap_write_bits(priv->regmap, TACH_ASPEED_CTRL(tach_ch), > > + TACH_ASPEED_IO_EDGE_MASK, > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].tach_edge > > + << TACH_ASPEED_IO_EDGE_BIT); > > + > limited_inverse, tach_debounce, and tach_edge are constants. > There is no need to keep constants as per-channel variables. > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].divisor = DEFAULT_TACH_DIV; > > + regmap_write_bits(priv->regmap, TACH_ASPEED_CTRL(tach_ch), > > + TACH_ASPEED_CLK_DIV_T_MASK, > > + DIV_TO_REG(priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].divisor) > > + << TACH_ASPEED_CLK_DIV_BIT); > > + > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].threshold = 0; > > + regmap_write_bits(priv->regmap, TACH_ASPEED_CTRL(tach_ch), > > + TACH_ASPEED_THRESHOLD_MASK, > > + priv->tach_channel[tach_ch].threshold); > > + > The above applies to threshold as well. The above code is used to retain the adjustable feature of the controller. I will remove them until I add the dts property to support them. > > + } > > + > > + hwmon = devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, "aspeed_tach", priv, > > + &aspeed_tach_chip_info, NULL); > > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(hwmon); > > + if (ret) > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, > > + "Failed to register hwmon device\n"); > > + return 0; > Why not return the error ? Either it is an error or it isn't. If it is > not an error, dev_err_probe() is not appropriate. If it is, the error > should be returned. Either case, if this is on purpose, it needs an > explanation. I have return the return value of the dev_err_probe. Did I miss someting?
No, me not having enough coffee when reviewing the code. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Guenter