On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:23:49 -0800
Steven King <sfking@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The TI TMP102 is similar to the lm75. It differs from the lm75 by having a 16 bit conf register
> and the temp registers have a minimum resolution of 12bits; the extended conf register
> can select 13 bit resolution (which this driver does) and also change the update rate (which this
> driver currently doesn't use).
>
A neat little driver.
checkpatch spits this warning:
WARNING: struct dev_pm_ops should normally be const
#387: FILE: drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c:300:
+static struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = {
which seems truthful enough.
--- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c~hwmon-driver-for-ti-tmp102-temperature-sensor-checkpatch-fixes
+++ a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ static int tmp102_resume(struct device *
return 0;
}
-static struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = {
+static const struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = {
.suspend = tmp102_suspend,
.resume = tmp102_resume,
};
_
And doing this will hurt readers' brains less:
Use conventional array-walk loop.
--- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c~hwmon-driver-for-ti-tmp102-temperature-sensor-fix
+++ a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
@@ -91,13 +91,14 @@ static struct tmp102 *tmp102_update_devi
mutex_lock(&tmp102->lock);
if (time_after(jiffies, tmp102->last_update + HZ / 4)) {
- int i = 0;
- do {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tmp102->temp); i++) {
int status = tmp102_read_reg(client, tmp102_reg[i]);
if (status > -1)
tmp102->temp[i] = tmp102_reg_to_mC(status);
- } while (++i < ARRAY_SIZE(tmp102->temp));
+ }
tmp102->last_update = jiffies;
}
mutex_unlock(&tmp102->lock);
_
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
