On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:10:33PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote:
> Use devm_hwmon_device_register_with_groups instead of
> the old-style manual attributes and hwmon device registration.
>
[ ... ]
> static int vexpress_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> - int err;
> const struct of_device_id *match;
> struct vexpress_hwmon_data *data;
> + const char *name;
> + const struct attribute_group **groups;
>
> data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!data)
> @@ -176,42 +151,19 @@ static int vexpress_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return -ENODEV;
>
There is a leftover platform_set_drvdata() above which you can remove;
attributes are now attached to the hwmon device and no longer
to the platform device.
>
> - match = of_match_device(vexpress_hwmon_of_match, &pdev->dev);
> - sysfs_remove_group(&pdev->dev.kobj, match->data);
> + name = of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "compatible", NULL);
Couple of problems, two of which escaped me earlier.
First, can of_get_property ever return NULL ? I think not, just wondering.
Second is a real problem. You have a '-' in the compatible property which is
illegal for the 'name' attribute in hwmon devices. It messes up libsensors
and thus every application using it. Not sure what a good fix (or name)
would be; simplest might be to copy the name string and replace it with '_'.
Sorry for not noticing this earlier; it might actually make sense to submit
a separate patch to address this so we can apply it to the current kernel
and if necessary patch it into earlier kernels.
Third, I noticed that the 'label' attribute is always created but returns
-ENOENT if there is no label. A much better implementation would be to use
.is_visible and not create the label attribute if its devicetree entry
does not exist. I don't know how libsensors reacts to -ENOENT on a read,
but no matter how it does react, it is pretty much undefined.
Again, that should be handled in a separate patch.
I agree with Arnd that it would be nice to get rid of the local macro,
but I won't mandate that.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
