On 04/08/2015 05:20 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:15:04PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> The new OPAL device tree for sensors has a different layout and uses new
>> property names, for the type and for the handler used to capture the
>> sensor data.
>>
>> This patch modifies the ibmpowernv driver to support such a tree in a
>> way preserving compatibility with older OPAL firmwares.
>>
>> This is achieved by changing the error path of the routine parsing
>> an OPAL node name. The node is simply considered being from the new
>> device tree layout and fallback values are used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Cedric,
>
> I was about to apply the series, but then I found the following problem.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
> [ ... ]
>>
>> @@ -189,11 +204,16 @@ static u32 get_sensor_hwmon_index(struct sensor_data *sdata,
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
>> - if (sdata_table[i].opal_index == sdata->opal_index &&
>> - sdata_table[i].type == sdata->type)
>> - return sdata_table[i].hwmon_index;
>> + /*
>> + * We don't use the OPAL index on newer device trees
>> + */
>> + if (sdata->opal_index != -1) {
>
> opal_index is u32, so this won't work (or at least the result is
> unpredictable).
>
> Also, in patch 4/4 (v4), get_logical_cpu() takes unsigned int as parameter,
> but get_hard_smp_processor_id() returns an int, causing gcc to complain
> if the code is built with W=1.
>
> Please fix and resubmit the entire series.
>
> When you do that, please also ensure that continuation lines
> are aligned (in patch 3/4).
Sure. Working on it right now.
Thanks,
C.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
