On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:23:31PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On 18-09-2013 11:57, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:54:18AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >> On 18-09-2013 11:17, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>>> On 18-09-2013 07:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:29:45PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-09-2013 19:33, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09/15/2013 03:02 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This patch adds to tmp102 temperature sensor the possibility to
> >>>>>>>> expose itself as thermal zone device, registered on the thermal
> >>>>>>>> framework.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The thermal zone is built only if a device tree node describing
> >>>>>>>> a thermal zone for this sensor is present inside the tmp102 DT
> >>>>>>>> node. Otherwise, the driver behavior will be the same.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Guenter Roeck
> >>>>>>>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc:
> >>>>>>>> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin
> >>>>>>>> <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> --- drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c | 28
> >>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
> >>>>>>>> index d7b47ab..e432444 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c +++
> >>>>>>>> b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ #include
> >>>>>>>> <linux/mutex.h> #include <linux/device.h> #include
> >>>>>>>> <linux/jiffies.h> +#include <linux/thermal.h> +#include
> >>>>>>>> <linux/of.h>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> #define DRIVER_NAME "tmp102"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @@ -50,6 +52,7 @@
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> struct tmp102 { struct device *hwmon_dev; + struct
> >>>>>>>> thermal_zone_device *tz; struct mutex lock; u16 config_orig;
> >>>>>>>> unsigned long last_update; @@ -93,6 +96,19 @@ static struct
> >>>>>>>> tmp102 *tmp102_update_device(struct i2c_client *client) return
> >>>>>>>> tmp102; }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +static int tmp102_read_temp(void *dev, long *temp) +{ +
> >>>>>>>> struct tmp102 *tmp102 =
> >>>>>>>> tmp102_update_device(to_i2c_client(dev)); + + if
> >>>>>>>> (tmp102->temp[0] < 0) + dev_warn(tmp102->hwmon_dev, +
> >>>>>>>> "operating in negative temp: %d\n", tmp102->temp[0]); +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please drop this warning.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Done for both drivers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Guenter
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> + *temp = tmp102->temp[0]; + + return 0; +} + static
> >>>>>>>> ssize_t tmp102_show_temp(struct device *dev, struct
> >>>>>>>> device_attribute *attr, char *buf) @@ -204,6 +220,16 @@ static
> >>>>>>>> int tmp102_probe(struct i2c_client *client, goto
> >>>>>>>> fail_remove_sysfs; }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> + tmp102->tz = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev,
> >>>>>>>> 0, + &client->dev, +
> >>>>>>>> tmp102_read_temp, NULL); + if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz)) { +
> >>>>>>>> dev_warn(&client->dev, + "Could not parse thermal
> >>>>>>>> data in device tree: %ld\n", +
> >>>>>>>> PTR_ERR(tmp102->tz));
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please drop this warning. You already create error messages in
> >>>>>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(). That should be sufficient. The
> >>>>>>> same applies to the lm75 patch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK. Done for both.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As a side note, I would suggest to provide devm_ functions for
> >>>>>>> registration. We are introducing those for hwmon registration,
> >>>>>>> which enables us to remove most _remove functions. It would be
> >>>>>>> great if we can keep it that way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right. This side note is taken. Actually this is on my todo list
> >>>>>> for quite a while. But I believe this should not block this series,
> >>>>>> should it? I will be probably cleaning the thermal framework code
> >>>>>> after this current work is accepted at least.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On a higher level, I don't think it is a good idea to make
> >>>>>>> thermal zones and thermal zone data mandatory. Many systems may
> >>>>>>> neither need nor want it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I agree with you. Did you see something hard required in the
> >>>>>> patch I sent. I made it so that it could continue the driver probe
> >>>>>> without thermal zones, as you requested.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> If it is not mandatory you should not dump an error message to the
> >>>>> console in the thermal registration function. Since you do, you at
> >>>>> least consider it mandatory if that function is called.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So please either drop the error message from the registration
> >>>>> function or add a check into the drivers to only register into the
> >>>>> thermal subsystem if there is a respective thermal entry for that
> >>>>> sensor in the devicetree data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are systes out there with literally dozens of temperature
> >>>>> sensors. In many cases, those are purely for system health
> >>>>> monitoring, not for thermal management. I don't want to end up in a
> >>>>> situation where users complain about dozens of error messages on the
> >>>>> console and no way to avoid it but providing dummy thermal subsystem
> >>>>> data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I see.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then I will rollback to the previous version in which lm sensors were
> >>>> first probing for thermal properties within their dt node. Something like:
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
> >>>> index dc96598..cb1c663 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
> >>>> @@ -216,11 +216,13 @@ static int tmp102_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >>>> goto fail_remove_sysfs;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> - tmp102->tz = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev, 0,
> >>>> - &client->dev,
> >>>> - tmp102_read_temp,
> >>>> NULL);
> >>>> - if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz))
> >>>> - tmp102->tz = NULL;
> >>>> + if ((of_find_property(client->dev.of_node, "#sensor-cells", NULL)) {
> >>>> + tmp102->tz =
> >>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev, 0,
> >>>> + &client->dev,
> >>>> +
> >>>> tmp102_read_temp, NULL);
> >>>> + if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz))
> >>>> + tmp102->tz = NULL;
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> dev_info(&client->dev, "initialized\n");
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Does it sound reasonable?
> >>>>
> >>> Personally I would prefer if the registration code fails silently.
> >>> Pushing the above code into each driver is just adding the same code
> >>> repeatedly all over the place.
> >>
> >> Fair enough. It becomes tedious and just duplicating code. I agree.
> >>
> >> So I will keep the v2 I just sent and remove the annoying error messages
> >> from of-thermal.c while registering the sensors.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also, each sensor instance will still result in an error if there
> >>> is no global "thermal-zones" entry. Checking for that global entry
> >>> in each driver would be even more excessive, and I just don't like
> >>> that noisyness.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I think you'll need to create devicetree bindings documents
> >>> for the two sensors.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why would I? There is only one extra property and that is already
> >> documented. I think the sensor still falls into the dummy dt node.
> >>
> > I'll leave that up to the devicetree folks to decide.
>
> OK. Fair enough. Let s see what they have to say. Mark, Pawel, Stephen?
>
> Guenter, any other objections a part from those I already fixed?
>
Not in the drivers, except that I am quite sure that the unregister call
will cause a NULL pointer access if the passed thermal zone is NULL.
I'll comment on that separetely in the related patch.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
