On 02/24/2015 05:54 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 16:07 +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor.c
>> index 4ab67ef7abc9..544292f2020f 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor.c
>> @@ -72,6 +72,9 @@ static __init int opal_sensor_init(void)
>> struct platform_device *pdev;
>> struct device_node *sensor;
>>
>> + if (!opal_check_token(OPAL_SENSOR_READ))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> sensor = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,opal/sensors");
>> if (!sensor) {
>> pr_err("Opal node 'sensors' not found\n");
>
> Are you actually seeing this in practice?
No. Not this one. I have seen others though. I will send you patches.
> It's a bit annoying that we have to check for the token, and then also check
> the device tree. It would be nice if one implied the presence of the other.
Should we expose the OPAL call token in the device tree ?
Cheers,
C.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
