----- "Jean Delvare" <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote :
> May I suggest the more simple fix below?
>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/sht15.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.34-rc3.orig/drivers/hwmon/sht15.c 2010-04-01
> 13:41:15.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.34-rc3/drivers/hwmon/sht15.c 2010-04-01
> 13:41:55.000000000 +0200
> @@ -305,10 +305,10 @@ static inline int sht15_calc_temp(struct
> int d1 = 0;
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE(temppoints); i++)
> + for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(temppoints) - 1; i > 0 ;i--)
> /* Find pointer to interpolate */
> if (data->supply_uV > temppoints[i - 1].vdd) {
> - d1 = (data->supply_uV/1000 - temppoints[i - 1].vdd)
> + d1 = (data->supply_uV - temppoints[i - 1].vdd)
> * (temppoints[i].d1 - temppoints[i - 1].d1)
> / (temppoints[i].vdd - temppoints[i - 1].vdd)
> + temppoints[i - 1].d1;
>
> It leads to the same numbers as with Jerome's patch, with the
> advantages that 1* it is a much smaller change, more suitable for
> applying to stable kernels and 2* it avoids the magic constant number
> 10000.
>
> The "/1000" seems to be a relict of former times when
> temppoints[*].vdd
> was probably expressed in millivolt instead of microvolt. And the
> inverted loop iteration is obviously a bug.
>
> Note that in both cases, something should be done about values which
> are outside of the temppoints array. I don't know how likely these
> are,
> but they are seriously mishandled. For supply_uV values below
> temppoints[0].vdd, d1 defaults to 0, so no adjustment is done at all.
> temppoints[0].d1 would seem to be a much better default, if we don't
> want to do any interpolation in that case. For supply_uV values above
> temppoints[4].vdd, we do interpolate, which seems reasonable.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
That's fine, it does a good job for me, in the expected voltage range.
Jerome Oufella
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
