On 2011년 08월 26일 01:26, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 04:13 -0400, Donggeun Kim wrote:
>> +static void exynos4_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct exynos4_tmu_data *data = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> + struct exynos4_tmu_platform_data *pdata = data->pdata;
>> + unsigned int status, trim_info, interrupt_en;
>> + u8 threshold_code;
>> +
>> + clk_enable(data->clk);
>> +
>> + status = readb(data->base + EXYNOS4_TMU_REG_STATUS);
>> + if (!status) {
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "TMU is busy\n");
>
> Please use dev_info(&pdev->dev, ...);
>
>> + clk_disable(data->clk);
>> + return;
>
> Are you sure it is a good idea to ignore this error ? Limits won't be
> set, threshold won't be set, trigger levels won't be set. In other
> words, the chip is left in a completely uninitialized and thus
> unpredictable state.
>
> It might be better to abort driver initialization if this happens.
>
I should have handled this as a error. I will fix it.
>> +static int exynos4_tmu_read(struct exynos4_tmu_data *data, u8 *temp)
>> +{
>> + u8 temp_code;
>> +
>> + clk_enable(data->clk);
>> +
>> + temp_code = readb(data->base + EXYNOS4_TMU_REG_CURRENT_TEMP);
>> + if (!temp_code) {
>> + dev_err(data->hwmon_dev, "Failed to read temperature code\n");
>
> dev_err and EAGAIN ? Is this really necessary ? EAGAIN will result in a
> retry; if the condition is permanent you'll fill the log pretty quickly.
>
Okay, it would be better to change the error code.
Thanks for your review.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
