On 07/11/2013 02:18 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:25:38PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>> When the temperature exceed the limit range value,
>> the driver can handle the interrupt.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index 2cb7f8e..88ff362 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@
>> #include <linux/err.h>
>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>> #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>
>> /*
>> * Addresses to scan
>> @@ -179,6 +180,19 @@ enum chips { lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, max6659, adt7461, max6680,
>> #define LM90_HAVE_TEMP3 (1 << 6) /* 3rd temperature sensor */
>> #define LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT (1 << 7) /* Broken alert */
>>
>> +/* LM90 status */
>> +#define LM90_LTHRM (1 << 0) /* local THERM limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_RTHRM (1 << 1) /* remote THERM limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_OPEN (1 << 2) /* remote is an open circuit */
>> +#define LM90_RLOW (1 << 3) /* remote low temp limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_RHIGH (1 << 4) /* remote high temp limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_LLOW (1 << 5) /* local low temp limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_LHIGH (1 << 6) /* local high temp limit tripped */
>> +#define LM90_BUSY (1 << 7) /* ADC is converting */
>> +
>> +#define MAX6696_RLOW (1 << 3) /* remote2 low temp limit tripped */
>> +#define MAX6696_RHIGH (1 << 4) /* remote2 high temp limit tripped */
>> +
>> /*
>> * Driver data (common to all clients)
>> */
>> @@ -1423,6 +1437,43 @@ static void lm90_init_client(struct i2c_client *client)
>> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_CONFIG1, config);
>> }
>>
>> +static void lm90_alarm_status(struct i2c_client *client,
>> + u8 alarms, u8 alarms_max6696)
>> +{
> If you are introdcing a function to evaluate the alarm status, you might as well
> copy the register reads as well as the mask evaluations into this function.
>
> If you don't want to see the "Everything ok" output if nothing is wrong, it can
> return a boolean indicating if a status bit was set. This way the calling code
> can also more easily determine if it should return IRQ_NONE or IRQ_HANDLED.
Yes, you are right, I will change change the function to:
lm90_is_tripped(*client)
{
/* read status register */
/* check bit */
/* return true or false to indicate if the limit tripped */
}
>
>> + if (alarms & (LM90_LLOW | LM90_LHIGH | LM90_LTHRM))
>> + dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 1);
>> + if (alarms & (LM90_RLOW | LM90_RHIGH | LM90_RTHRM))
>> + dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 2);
>> + if (alarms & LM90_OPEN)
>> + dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> + "temp%d diode open, please check!\n", 2);
>> +
>> + if (alarms_max6696 & (MAX6696_RLOW | MAX6696_RHIGH))
>> + dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> + "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 3);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t lm90_irq_thread(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> +{
>> + struct lm90_data *data = dev_id;
>> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(data->hwmon_dev->parent);
>> + u8 alarms, alarms_max6696 = 0;
>> +
> Please stick with alarms2 instead of alarms_max6696 as in the original code.
>
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_STATUS, &alarms);
>> +
>> + if (data->kind == max6696)
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6696_REG_R_STATUS2, &alarms_max6696);
>> +
>> + if ((alarms & 0x7f) == 0 && (alarms_max6696 & 0xfe) == 0) {
>> + return IRQ_NONE;
>> + } else {
>
> That else statement is unnecessary.
>
>> + lm90_alarm_status(client, alarms, alarms_max6696);
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> {
>> @@ -1499,6 +1550,18 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> goto exit_remove_files;
>> }
>>
>> + if (client->irq >= 0) {
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "lm90 IRQ: %d\n", client->irq);
>> + err = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq,
>> + NULL, lm90_irq_thread,
>> + IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> + "lm90", data);
>> + if (err < 0) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "cannot request interrupt\n");
>> + goto exit_remove_files;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>>
>> exit_remove_files:
>> @@ -1532,19 +1595,7 @@ static void lm90_alert(struct i2c_client *client, unsigned int flag)
>> if ((alarms & 0x7f) == 0 && (alarms2 & 0xfe) == 0) {
>> dev_info(&client->dev, "Everything OK\n");
>> } else {
>> - if (alarms & 0x61)
>> - dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 1);
>> - if (alarms & 0x1a)
>> - dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 2);
>> - if (alarms & 0x04)
>> - dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> - "temp%d diode open, please check!\n", 2);
>> -
>> - if (alarms2 & 0x18)
>> - dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> - "temp%d out of range, please check!\n", 3);
>> + lm90_alarm_status(client, alarms, alarms2);
>>
>> /*
>> * Disable ALERT# output, because these chips don't implement
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
