On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:17:13AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. It's hard to believe the code has been broken for
> so long and nobody complained...
>
> Please run your patch through scripts/checkpatch.pl, and fix all the
> style errors before you resubmit.
ok, I will.
> >
> > diff -r -U 5 linux-source-2.6.26_orig/drivers/hwmon/adm1026.c linux-source-2.6.26/drivers/hwmon/adm1026.c
> > --- linux-source-2.6.26_orig/drivers/hwmon/adm1026.c 2008-07-13 14:51:29.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-source-2.6.26/drivers/hwmon/adm1026.c 2010-11-29 17:21:06.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -918,37 +918,42 @@
> > {
> > struct sensor_device_attribute *sensor_attr = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr);
> > int nr = sensor_attr->index;
> > struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > struct adm1026_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > - int val, orig_div, new_div, shift;
> > + int val, orig_div, new_div;
> >
> > val = simple_strtol(buf, NULL, 10);
> > - new_div = DIV_TO_REG(val);
> > - if (new_div == 0) {
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > - mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> > - orig_div = data->fan_div[nr];
> > - data->fan_div[nr] = DIV_FROM_REG(new_div);
> >
> > - if (nr < 4) { /* 0 <= nr < 4 */
> > - shift = 2 * nr;
> > - adm1026_write_value(client, ADM1026_REG_FAN_DIV_0_3,
> > - ((DIV_TO_REG(orig_div) & (~(0x03 << shift))) |
> > - (new_div << shift)));
> > - } else { /* 3 < nr < 8 */
> > - shift = 2 * (nr - 4);
> > - adm1026_write_value(client, ADM1026_REG_FAN_DIV_4_7,
> > - ((DIV_TO_REG(orig_div) & (~(0x03 << (2 * shift)))) |
> > - (new_div << shift)));
> > + if(val<1 || val>8) {
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> As underlined by Phil already, this is a little inconsistent. You
> should reject all invalid values, as documented at the end of
> Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface. But this should be done in a
> separate patch, as this isn't really a bug fix and changes the driver's
> behavior on invalid input.
Original code will reject 1 as input. I think this is a bug as div=1 is
valid for adm1026.
Anyway, if you think I should separate the patch and reject all invalid
values it's ok for me.
> > + adm1026_write_value(client, ADM1026_REG_FAN_DIV_4_7,
> > + (DIV_TO_REG(data->fan_div[4]) << 0) |
> > + (DIV_TO_REG(data->fan_div[5]) << 2) |
> > + (DIV_TO_REG(data->fan_div[6]) << 4) |
> > + (DIV_TO_REG(data->fan_div[7]) << 6) );
> > + }
>
> Note: this is horribly inefficient. In my opinion, data->fan_div should
> hold split but un-decoded register values. Calling DIV_FROM_REG() is
> cheap, calling DIV_TO_REG() is expensive. In fact DIV_TO_REG()
> shouldn't exist in the first place, as the conversion should happen in
> a single place. Again, this is material for a separate patch.
agree.
thanks,
GG
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
