On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:46:35AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> If the SCMI firmware implementation is reporting values in a scale that
> is different from the HWMON units, we need to scale up or down the value
> according to how far appart they are.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> index a80183a488c5..2c7b87edf5aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,47 @@ struct scmi_sensors {
> const struct scmi_sensor_info **info[hwmon_max];
> };
>
> +static inline u64 __pow10(u8 x)
> +{
> + u64 r = 1;
> +
> + while (x--)
> + r *= 10;
> +
> + return r;
> +}
> +
> +static int scmi_hwmon_scale(const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor, u64 *value)
> +{
> + s8 scale = sensor->scale;
> + u64 f;
> +
> + switch (sensor->type) {
> + case TEMPERATURE_C:
> + case VOLTAGE:
> + case CURRENT:
> + scale += 3;
> + break;
> + case POWER:
> + case ENERGY:
> + scale += 6;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> +
I was applying this and wanted to check if we can add a check for scale=0
here and return early here to above the below check and __pow10(0) ?
Let me know if you agree. I can fix up. Also I will try to test it on
Juno if firmware behaves correctly :)
--
Regards,
Sudeep
