On 09/02/2015 01:31 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:57:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
The STEP_UP_TIME and STEP_DOWN_TIME registers are swapped for all chips but
NCT6775.
Odd, but well, wouldn't be the first time.
Reported-by: Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/nct6775.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/nct6775.c b/drivers/hwmon/nct6775.c
index 0a08f776a5de..b487a55d02c0 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/nct6775.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/nct6775.c
@@ -252,6 +252,7 @@ static const u16 NCT6775_REG_TARGET[] = {
0x101, 0x201, 0x301, 0x801, 0x901, 0xa01 };
static const u16 NCT6775_REG_FAN_MODE[] = {
0x102, 0x202, 0x302, 0x802, 0x902, 0xa02 };
+/* STEP_DOWN_TIME and STEP_UP_TIME regs are swapped for all chips but NCT6775 */
static const u16 NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME[] = {
0x103, 0x203, 0x303, 0x803, 0x903, 0xa03 };
static const u16 NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME[] = {
@@ -3536,8 +3537,8 @@ static int nct6775_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
data->REG_FAN_PULSES = NCT6776_REG_FAN_PULSES;
data->FAN_PULSE_SHIFT = NCT6775_FAN_PULSE_SHIFT;
data->REG_FAN_TIME[0] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STOP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
data->REG_TOLERANCE_H = NCT6776_REG_TOLERANCE_H;
data->REG_PWM[0] = NCT6775_REG_PWM;
data->REG_PWM[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_START_OUTPUT;
@@ -3608,8 +3609,8 @@ static int nct6775_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
data->REG_FAN_PULSES = NCT6779_REG_FAN_PULSES;
data->FAN_PULSE_SHIFT = NCT6775_FAN_PULSE_SHIFT;
data->REG_FAN_TIME[0] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STOP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
data->REG_TOLERANCE_H = NCT6776_REG_TOLERANCE_H;
data->REG_PWM[0] = NCT6775_REG_PWM;
data->REG_PWM[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_START_OUTPUT;
@@ -3685,8 +3686,8 @@ static int nct6775_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
data->REG_FAN_PULSES = NCT6779_REG_FAN_PULSES;
data->FAN_PULSE_SHIFT = NCT6775_FAN_PULSE_SHIFT;
data->REG_FAN_TIME[0] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STOP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
- data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME;
+ data->REG_FAN_TIME[2] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME;
data->REG_TOLERANCE_H = NCT6776_REG_TOLERANCE_H;
data->REG_PWM[0] = NCT6775_REG_PWM;
data->REG_PWM[1] = NCT6775_REG_FAN_START_OUTPUT;
Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
While correct, I am a little worried that the resulting code could later
look like a bug to anyone not familiar with these chips. I was
wondering if maybe something like:
#define NCT6776_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME
#define NCT6776_REG_FAN_STEP_UP_TIME NCT6775_REG_FAN_STEP_DOWN_TIME
would make sense. Then you would use NCT6776_REG_FAN_STEP_UP/DOWN_TIME
in nct6775_probe().
Just an random thought, maybe it adds more confusion than it clears, I
don't know.
No, I think that is actually better, since it doesn't hide that the registers
are swapped in the middle of the code. I'll make that change, with a comment
describing the reason.
Thanks a lot for the suggestion!
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
