On 10/23/2015 01:35 PM, Marc Titinger wrote:
Hi Guenter
thanks for the review, answers bellow.
Marc.
[ ... ]
- /*
- * Ina226 has a variable update_interval. For ina219 we
- * use a constant value.
+ /* Check for shunt resistor value.
Another comment: Standard multi-line comments, please.
+ * Give precedence to device tree over must-recompile.
*/
- if (data->kind == ina226)
- ina226_set_update_interval(data);
- else
- data->update_interval = HZ / INA2XX_CONVERSION_RATE;
+ if (of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "shunt-resistor", &val) < 0) {
+ pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
+ if (pdata)
+ val = pdata->shunt_uohms;
+ else
+ val = INA2XX_RSHUNT_DEFAULT;
+ }
This changes priority from platform data first to devicetree configuration first.
As such, it is an unrelated change. If needed, split into a separate patch, and
Yes I would do a separate patch normaly, agreed.
explain the reasoning, please.
Changing the platform data requires changes in the kernel code, and hence recompilation. It seems a bit unexpected that setting a new value in the dtb will be ignored because there is a compiled-in platform data. Should'nt the dtb allow to override platform data ?
Normally you would not _have_ platform data in a system which is dtb enabled.
I don't really mind changing priorities (you are right, it makes sense to
check for devicetree data first), but as mentioned as separate patch, please.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
