Hi Guenter,
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:01:01 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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.
checkpatch.pl says that I can, not that I have to. But I will if that
makes you happy...
> 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 ?
I had one success report by now, so I'll push the patch to Linus. As
testing coverage increases, we'll see if there's a pattern amongst
failure cases.
Thanks for the review.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
