On 5/14/19 9:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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) ?
Doing an early check for scale == 0 sounds like a good idea,good catch!
Feel free to amend the patch directly when you apply it.
>
> Let me know if you agree. I can fix up. Also I will try to test it on
> Juno if firmware behaves correctly :)
Great, thanks.
--
Florian
