On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:24:23PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > There is nothing critically wrong to read these two attributes > without having a is_enabled() check at this point. But reading > the MASK_ENABLE register would clear the CVRF bit according to > the datasheet. So it'd be safer to fence for disabled channels > in order to add pm runtime feature. > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > index d61688f04594..3e98b59108ee 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/ina3221.c > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ static int ina3221_read_curr(struct device *dev, u32 attr, > return 0; > case hwmon_curr_crit_alarm: > case hwmon_curr_max_alarm: > + if (!ina3221_is_enabled(ina, channel)) > + return -ENODATA; Makes sense, but can you check what the sensors command does with this ? If it bails out I'd rather have the code return 0 and no error (after all, the sensor is disabled, so any alarm would be bogus). Thanks, Guenter > ret = regmap_field_read(ina->fields[reg], ®val); > if (ret) > return ret; > -- > 2.17.1 >
