On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:39:17PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > 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 ? > > Not quite understanding the question. Do you mean the user case > causing the race condition -- wiping out the CVRF bit? > No. Question is what the "sensors" command reports if reading the alarm attribute returns -ENODATA. If it reports an error, we would have a regression. Guenter > > 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). > > That's true. Since they are alert flags, should return 0. I will > fix it. > > Thanks
