On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:25 -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Add chassis intrusion detection support for all supported devices,
> using the standard interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This needs testing! The only report I have so far, says that reporting
> works OK but clearing the intrusion alarm does not. That case is still
> under investigation, as my code follows the datasheet as far as I can
> see, so I have no idea why it wouldn't work.
>
> it87.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>
> --- it87.orig/drivers/hwmon/it87.c 2011-07-11 16:09:21.000000000 +0200
> +++ it87/drivers/hwmon/it87.c 2011-07-13 21:10:53.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1172,6 +1172,32 @@ static ssize_t show_alarm(struct device
> struct it87_data *data = it87_update_device(dev);
> return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", (data->alarms >> bitnr) & 1);
> }
> +
> +static ssize_t clear_intrusion(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> + *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct it87_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + long val;
> + int config;
> +
> + if (strict_strtol(buf, 10, &val) < 0 || val != 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> + config = it87_read_value(data, IT87_REG_CONFIG);
> + if (config < 0)
> + count = config;
> + else {
> + config |= 1 << 5;
> + it87_write_value(data, IT87_REG_CONFIG, config);
> + /* Invalidate cache to force re-read */
> + data->valid = 0;
> + }
If you use { } for the else branch, you should use { } for the if branch
as well.
Other than that, difficult to say why it would not work. The datasheet I
have access to agrees with your code. Maybe it works differently for
different chips ?
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
