Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 2020-01-15 14:24:30 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 14/01/2020 23:29, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > The hardware manual states that the operation of the sensor is not
> > guaranteed outside the range of -40°C to 125°C, not that the readings
> > are invalid. Remove the bound check and try to deliver temperature
> > readings even if we are outside the guaranteed operation range.
>
> And what if the sensor is returning crap in this out-of-range operation?
I'm not sure what is worse, reporting an untrue (but still outside the
guaranteed operation range) extreme temperature or failing with -EIO.
The view of the hardware guys is that it's better to report what the
sensor indicates then to return -EIO.
>
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c | 7 -------
> > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
> > index d0873de718da9218..2ae60b27a0183db1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
> > @@ -275,13 +275,6 @@ static int rcar_thermal_get_current_temp(struct rcar_thermal_priv *priv,
> > tmp = MCELSIUS((priv->ctemp * 5) - 60);
> > mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
> >
> > - if ((tmp < MCELSIUS(-45)) || (tmp > MCELSIUS(125))) {
> > - struct device *dev = rcar_priv_to_dev(priv);
> > -
> > - dev_err(dev, "it couldn't measure temperature correctly\n");
> > - return -EIO;
> > - }
> > -
> > *temp = tmp;
> >
> > return 0;
> >
>
>
> --
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>
--
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
