On 5/27/20 10:05 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 5/27/20 9:52 AM, Serge Semin wrote: >>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:25:49AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:38:23PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: >>> >>> [nip] >>> >>>>> + >>>>> +=============================== ======= ======================================= >>>>> +Name Perm Description >>>>> +=============================== ======= ======================================= >>>>> +update_interval RW Measurements update interval per >>>>> + sensor. >>>>> +temp1_type RO Sensor type (always 1 as CPU embedded >>>>> + diode). >>>>> +temp1_label RO CPU Core Temperature sensor. >>>>> +temp1_input RO Measured temperature in millidegree >>>>> + Celsius. >>>>> +temp1_min RW Low limit for temp input. >>>>> +temp1_max RW High limit for temp input. >>>>> +temp1_min_alarm RO Temperature input alarm. Returns 1 if >>>>> + temperature input went below min limit, >>>>> + 0 otherwise. >>>>> +temp1_max_alarm RO Temperature input alarm. Returns 1 if >>>>> + temperature input went above max limit, >>>>> + 0 otherwise. >>>>> +temp1_trim RW Temperature sensor trimming factor in >>>>> + millidegree Celsius. It can be used to >>>>> + manually adjust the temperature >>>>> + measurements within 7.130 degrees >>>>> + Celsius. >>>> >>>> vs. standard ABI: >>>> >>>> temp[1-*]_offset` >>>> Temperature offset which is added to the temperature reading >>>> by the chip. >>>> >>>> Unit: millidegree Celsius >>>> >>>> If you really think this is necessary, why not use the standard ABI ? >>> >>> That would have made much more sense.) I'll replace the handwritten temp1_trim >>> with the standard temp1_offset attribute in v4 shortly today. Thanks for pointing >>> this out. >>> >> >> Sorry for not realizing this earlier. The added explanation >> made all the difference. > > No worries. I'll fix it in v4. What about the clk_get_rate() part of the code? > You had a comment regarding it in v2. I responded with justification that we can > leave it as is. If you still disagree, then I create the clock rate caching in the > private data at the probe() stage. > Reason asking for it is that clk_get_rate() is unnecessarily costly if the rate doesn't change. But it isn't worth bike shedding about it. Guenter > -Sergey > >> >> Guenter
