On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 08:02:36AM GMT, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 03:17:57PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 02:13:20PM GMT, Chen Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024/7/30 15:50, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > [......]
> > > > +#define REG_CRITICAL_ACTIONS 0x65
> > > The name "REG_CRITICAL_ACTIONS" is ambiguous. I have confirmed with sophgo
> > > engineers that the complete process is: when the measured temperature
> > > exceeds the temperature set by REG_CRITICAL_TEMP, the processor is powered
> > > off and shut down, and then after the temperature returns to the temperature
> > > set by REG_REPOWER_TEMP, it is decided whether to power on again or remain
> > > in the shutdown state based on the action set by REG_CRITICAL_ACTIONS,
> > > whether it is reboot or poweroff.
> > >
> > > So based on the above description, I think it would be better to
> > > call "REG_CRITICAL_ACTIONS" as "REG_REPOWER_ACTIONS". "REG_CRITICAL_ACTIONS"
> > > gives people the first impression that it is used to set actions related to
> > > REG_CRITICAL_TEMP.
> > >
> > > It is also recommended to add the above description of temperature control
> > > and action settings in the code. Currently, sophgo does not have a clear
> > > document description for this part, and adding it will help us understand
> > > its functions.
> > >
> > > Adding sophgo engineers Chunzhi and Haijiao, FYI.
> > >
> > > > +#define REG_CRITICAL_TEMP 0x66
> > > > +#define REG_REPOWER_TEMP 0x67
> > > > +
> > > > +#define CRITICAL_ACTION_REBOOT 1
> > > > +#define CRITICAL_ACTION_POWEROFF 2
> > >
> > > As I said upon, actions are not related to critical, but is for restoring
> > > from critical, suggest to give a better name.
> > >
> > > [......]
> > >
> > > > +static ssize_t critical_action_show(struct device *dev,
> > > [......]
> > > > +static ssize_t critical_action_store(struct device *dev,
> > >
> > > [......]
> > >
> > > The same reason as upon, "critical_action_xxx" is misleading.
> > >
> > > [......]
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for explanation, I just get the name from the driver of SG2042.
> > This is out of my knowledge.
> >
> > > > +static int sg2042_mcu_read_temp(struct device *dev,
> > > > + u32 attr, int channel,
> > > > + long *val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sg2042_mcu_data *mcu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > + int tmp;
> > > > + u8 reg;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (attr) {
> > > > + case hwmon_temp_input:
> > > > + reg = channel ? REG_BOARD_TEMP : REG_SOC_TEMP;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case hwmon_temp_crit:
> > > > + reg = REG_CRITICAL_TEMP;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case hwmon_temp_crit_hyst:
> > > > + reg = REG_REPOWER_TEMP;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + tmp = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(mcu->client, reg);
> > > > + if (tmp < 0)
> > > > + return tmp;
> > > > + *val = tmp * 1000;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int sg2042_mcu_read(struct device *dev,
> > > > + enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
> > > > + u32 attr, int channel, long *val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return sg2042_mcu_read_temp(dev, attr, channel, val);
> > > > +}
> > > Can we merge sg2042_mcu_read and sg2042_mcu_read_temp？
> >
> > Yes, it can be merged. but I think using this nested function
> > is more clear. And gcc can auto inline this function so we
> > got no performance penalty.
> >
>
> FWIW, I think that is pointless. Te only difference is unused
> parameters.
>
OK, I will merge these function.
> > > > +
> > > > +static int sg2042_mcu_write(struct device *dev,
> > > > + enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
> > > > + u32 attr, int channel, long val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sg2042_mcu_data *mcu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > + int temp = val / 1000;
> > > > + int hyst_temp, crit_temp;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > + u8 reg;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (temp > MCU_POWER_MAX)
> > > > + temp = MCU_POWER_MAX;
>
> No lower limit ? -1000000 is ok ?
>
My fault, it should always > 0.
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&mcu->mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (attr) {
> > > > + case hwmon_temp_crit:
> > > > + hyst_temp = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(mcu->client,
> > > > + REG_REPOWER_TEMP);
> > > > + if (hyst_temp < 0) {
> > > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > + goto failed;
>
> Do not overwrite error codes.
>
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + crit_temp = temp;
> > > > + reg = REG_CRITICAL_TEMP;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case hwmon_temp_crit_hyst:
> > > > + crit_temp = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(mcu->client,
> > > > + REG_CRITICAL_TEMP);
> > > > + if (crit_temp < 0) {
> > > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > + goto failed;
>
> Do not overwrite error codes.
>
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + hyst_temp = temp;
> > > > + reg = REG_REPOWER_TEMP;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&mcu->mutex);
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> This is inconsistent.
>
Thanks, I will handle the return properly.
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > It is recommended to add some comments to explain why we need to ensure that
> > > crit_temp is greater than or equal to hyst_temp. This is entirely because
> > > the current MCU does not limit the input, which may cause user to set
> > > incorrect crit_temp and hyst_temp.
> >
> > Yeah, this is good idea.
> >
> > > > + if (crit_temp < hyst_temp) {
> > > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > + goto failed;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(mcu->client, reg, temp);
> > > > +
> > > > +failed:
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&mcu->mutex);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > [......]
