Hi Clemens,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:02:38AM -0500, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> On systems where the temperature sensor is actually used, the BIOS is
> likely to have locked the alarm registers. In that case, all writes
> through the corresponding sysfs files would be silently ignored.
>
> To prevent this, detect the locks and make the affected sysfs files
> read-only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/hwmon/jc42 | 12 ++++++++----
> drivers/hwmon/jc42.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/Documentation/hwmon/jc42
> +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/jc42
> @@ -86,15 +86,19 @@ limits. The chip supports only a single
> which applies to all limits. This register can be written by writing into
> temp1_crit_hyst. Other hysteresis attributes are read-only.
>
> +If the BIOS has configured the sensor for automatic temperature management, it
> +is likely that it has locked the registers, i.e., that the temperature limits
> +cannot be changed.
> +
> Sysfs entries
> -------------
>
> temp1_input Temperature (RO)
> -temp1_min Minimum temperature (RW)
> -temp1_max Maximum temperature (RW)
> -temp1_crit Critical high temperature (RW)
> +temp1_min Minimum temperature (RO or RW)
> +temp1_max Maximum temperature (RO or RW)
> +temp1_crit Critical high temperature (RO or RW)
>
> -temp1_crit_hyst Critical hysteresis temperature (RW)
> +temp1_crit_hyst Critical hysteresis temperature (RO or RW)
> temp1_max_hyst Maximum hysteresis temperature (RO)
>
> temp1_min_alarm Temperature low alarm
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ static const unsigned short normal_i2c[]
>
> /* Configuration register defines */
> #define JC42_CFG_CRIT_ONLY (1 << 2)
> +#define JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK (1 << 6)
> +#define JC42_CFG_EVENT_LOCK (1 << 7)
> #define JC42_CFG_SHUTDOWN (1 << 8)
> #define JC42_CFG_HYST_SHIFT 9
> #define JC42_CFG_HYST_MASK 0x03
> @@ -380,14 +382,14 @@ static ssize_t show_alarm(struct device
>
> static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_input, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_input, NULL);
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_crit, set_temp_crit);
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_min, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_min, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_min, set_temp_min);
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_max, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_max, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_max, set_temp_max);
>
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit_hyst, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit_hyst, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_crit_hyst, set_temp_crit_hyst);
> static DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_max_hyst, S_IRUGO,
> show_temp_max_hyst, NULL);
> @@ -412,8 +414,31 @@ static struct attribute *jc42_attributes
> NULL
> };
>
> +static mode_t jc42_attribute_mode(struct kobject *kobj,
> + struct attribute *attr, int index)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = container_of(kobj, struct device, kobj);
> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> + struct jc42_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> + unsigned int config = data->config;
> + bool readonly;
> +
> + if (attr == &dev_attr_temp1_crit.attr)
> + readonly = config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK;
You are assigning a non-bool to a bool. I can see that recent C compilers
do the right thing, but I am not sure if that is always the case.
So I would prefer
readonly = !!(config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK));
Same for the assignments below. I can make that change if you are ok with it.
> + else if (attr == &dev_attr_temp1_min.attr ||
> + attr == &dev_attr_temp1_max.attr)
> + readonly = config & JC42_CFG_EVENT_LOCK;
> + else if (attr == &dev_attr_temp1_crit_hyst.attr)
> + readonly = config & (JC42_CFG_EVENT_LOCK | JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK);
> + else
> + readonly = true;
> +
> + return S_IRUGO | (readonly ? 0 : S_IWUSR);
> +}
> +
> static const struct attribute_group jc42_group = {
> .attrs = jc42_attributes,
> + .is_visible = jc42_attribute_mode,
> };
>
> /* Return 0 if detection is successful, -ENODEV otherwise */
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
