Hi Guenter,
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:25:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:20:11AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:02:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > -static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT[] = { 0xff, 0x67, 0xff, 0x69 };
> > > -static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT[] = { 0xff, 0x68, 0xff, 0x6a };
> > > +
> > > +static const u8 *W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT;
> > > +static const u8 *W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT;
> > > +
> > > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_COMMON[]
> > > + = { 0xff, 0x67, 0xff, 0x69 };
> > > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_COMMON[]
> > > + = { 0xff, 0x68, 0xff, 0x6a };
> > > +
> > > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_W83667_B[] = { 0x67, 0x69, 0x6b };
> > > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_W83667_B[] = { 0x68, 0x6a, 0x6c };
> >
> > Is it just me or these arrays aren't used anywhere?
> >
> > I think I would just drop them. The "0xff" are suspicious in the
> > original arrays, and the size difference between the common and
> > W83667HG-B cases is tricky. Anyone willing to add support for this
> > feature will need to read the datasheets anyway, so you don't add any
> > value by including the register addresses here.
>
> After removing the defines and trying to compile I remembered.
> I _knew_ there was a reason for not removing them.
> Guess it's too late (or early) here to do serious work.
>
> The defines _are_ used, in:
>
> fan_functions(fan_max_output, FAN_MAX_OUTPUT)
> fan_functions(fan_step_output, FAN_STEP_OUTPUT)
>
> which expands to W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT and W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT.
>
> Tricky ... and that was also the reason why I retained the original
> global variables.
Tricky indeed. We normally don't accept code like this in the kernel.
> I'll move the pointers into per-device code as you suggested, but I'll
> have to think about how to do that w/o having to change a lot of code.
If code changes are desirable, let's just do them. You can do that in a
preliminary patch, and then your patch adding support for the
W83667HG-B goes on top of it.
> As for the 0xff - that pretty much applies to all chips supported by this driver.
> I guess it is supposed to mean "not supported", and as a result the code will
> write to a non-existing register. I don't really want to touch that.
I want you to touch that. Writing to non-existing registers is a bad
idea. You never know what actually happens when you do that.
> The size difference (3 entries vs. 4) doesn't matter, since the chips are both
> configured to have only three pwm fan controllers (even though the W83667HG
> is supposed to have four per its datasheet). So the 4th element of the arrays
> will not be accessed by the code if W83667HG(-B) is detected.
OK.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
