>>> On 02.09.10 at 23:25, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- linux-2.6.36-rc3/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ 2.6.36-rc3-x86-hwmon/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@
>> #define X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT (7*32+ 4) /* Optimized Xsave */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_PLN (7*32+ 5) /* Intel Power Limit Notification */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_PTS (7*32+ 6) /* Intel Package Thermal Status */
>> +#define X86_FEATURE_DTS (7*32+31) /* Digital Thermal Sensor */
>
> Is there any paticular reason to chose 7*32+31 instead of 7*32+7?
Oh, right, I actually wanted to changes this before final submission
(I coded it this way locally to avoid eventual collisions until I would
get to submit this).
>> --- linux-2.6.36-rc3/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
>> +++ 2.6.36-rc3-x86-hwmon/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
>> @@ -423,9 +423,18 @@ static int __cpuinit coretemp_device_add
>> int err;
>> struct platform_device *pdev;
>> struct pdev_entry *pdev_entry;
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(cpu);
>> -#endif
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * CPUID.06H.EAX[0] indicates whether the CPU has thermal
>> + * sensors. We check this bit only, all the early CPUs
>> + * without thermal sensors will be filtered out.
>> + */
>> + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_DTS)) {
>> + printk(KERN_INFO DRVNAME ": CPU (model=0x%x)"
>> + " has no thermal sensor.\n", c->x86_model);
>> + return 0;
>
> Return an error (e.g. -ENODEV) could be better because there is no device for
> this driver. Then caller may handle this error accordingly (no caller
> handles
> the error currently, though).
No, the intention of the change is for the code to remain logically
the same as it was - since the failed check previously only resulted
in a message getting printed, returning an error indication
(irrespective of there not being a check at the call sites) didn't
seem right to me.
Jan
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
