On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:46:43PM -0400, Chen Gong wrote:
> cleanup some redundant codes in coretemp.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Gong <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 18 ++++--------------
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> index 7b7c5b8..728e9c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> @@ -54,13 +54,13 @@ struct coretemp_data {
> const char *name;
> u32 id;
> u16 core_id;
> + u8 alarm;
> char valid; /* zero until following fields are valid */
> unsigned long last_updated; /* in jiffies */
> int temp;
> int pkg_temp;
> int tjmax;
> int ttarget;
> - u8 alarm;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -320,14 +320,14 @@ static int __devinit coretemp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> data->core_id = c->cpu_core_id;
> #endif
> - data->name = "coretemp";
> + data->name = DRVNAME;
> mutex_init(&data->update_lock);
>
> /* test if we can access the THERM_STATUS MSR */
> err = rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(data->id, MSR_IA32_THERM_STATUS, &eax, &edx);
> if (err) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> - "Unable to access THERM_STATUS MSR, giving up\n");
> + "Unable to access THERM_STATUS MSR, giving up\n");
This creates a line longer than 80 characters. What was wrong with the old formatting ?
> goto exit_free;
> }
>
> @@ -555,8 +555,7 @@ static int __init coretemp_init(void)
> if (c->cpuid_level >= 6 && (cpuid_eax(0x06) & 0x01)) {
> err = coretemp_device_add(i);
> if (err)
> - goto exit_devices_unreg;
> -
> + goto exit;
> } else {
> printk(KERN_INFO DRVNAME ": CPU (model=0x%x)"
> " has no thermal sensor.\n", c->x86_model);
> @@ -567,15 +566,6 @@ static int __init coretemp_init(void)
> register_hotcpu_notifier(&coretemp_cpu_notifier);
> #endif
> return 0;
> -
> -exit_devices_unreg:
> - mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
> - platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
> - list_del(&p->list);
> - kfree(p);
> - }
> - mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
Ah, guess that explains the previous patch. Seems to be a bit unusual, though,
not to remove created devices if an error occurs in init. Is that really ok ?
> exit:
> return err;
> }
> --
> 1.7.1.571.gba4d01
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lm-sensors mailing list
> lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
