Hi Jean,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:26:49AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:52:29 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > The alarm bit assumed to be a low voltage alarm bit is not set for low voltage
> > alarms, and the alarm bit assumed to be a high voltage alarm turns out to be a
> > general alarm bit which is set for both low and high voltage alarms.
> >
> > Remove the in1_min_alarm sysfs attribute and rename in1_max_alarm to in1_alarm
> > to reflect the situation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/lineage-pem.c | 7 ++-----
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lineage-pem.c b/drivers/hwmon/lineage-pem.c
> > index 2fe8e9e..ab63650 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lineage-pem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lineage-pem.c
> > @@ -345,9 +345,7 @@ static ssize_t pem_show_fan(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *da,
> > /* Voltages */
> > static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(in1_input, S_IRUGO, pem_show_data, NULL,
> > PEM_DATA_VOUT_LSB);
> > -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in1_min_alarm, S_IRUGO, pem_show_bool, NULL,
> > - PEM_DATA_ALARM_2, ALRM2_OV_LOW);
> > -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in1_max_alarm, S_IRUGO, pem_show_bool, NULL,
> > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in1_alarm, S_IRUGO, pem_show_bool, NULL,
> > PEM_DATA_ALARM_1, ALRM1_VOUT_OUT_LIMIT);
> > static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in1_crit_alarm, S_IRUGO, pem_show_bool, NULL,
> > PEM_DATA_ALARM_1, ALRM1_OV_VOLT_SHUTDOWN);
> > @@ -395,8 +393,7 @@ static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp1_fault, S_IRUGO, pem_show_bool, NULL,
> >
> > static struct attribute *pem_attributes[] = {
> > &sensor_dev_attr_in1_input.dev_attr.attr,
> > - &sensor_dev_attr_in1_min_alarm.dev_attr.attr,
> > - &sensor_dev_attr_in1_max_alarm.dev_attr.attr,
> > + &sensor_dev_attr_in1_alarm.dev_attr.attr,
> > &sensor_dev_attr_in1_crit_alarm.dev_attr.attr,
> > &sensor_dev_attr_in2_alarm.dev_attr.attr,
> >
>
> Looks good.
>
> Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Note that this means that this device has now in1_alarm and
> in1_crit_alarm. This is a case your proposed rewrite of the "sensors"
> code won't properly deal with, as it will only check for limit-specific
> alarm flags in the absence of a generic alarm flag (so in this case
> in1_crit_alarm will be ignored.) Not that the original code was better,
> but maybe it's the right time to get it right.
>
Yes, I know :(. I didn't want to get rid of the _crit attribute, since it is
supported and adds value. Figured I'd deal with the sensors problem later
(if I find a good solution).
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
