[RFC PATCH 6/9] hwmon: (lm90) Register to the thermal framework
Alex Courbot
acourbot at nvidia.com
Tue Feb 19 16:22:44 EST 2013
On 02/18/2013 08:30 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
> Register the remote sensor to the thermal framework.
> It can support to show the temperature and read/write threshold.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni at nvidia.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi | 1 +
> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 182 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Making changes to a driver *and* a board file in the same patch? I think
this should be separated, and the board file change preferably squashed
with the first patch of this series, and moved right after this one.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
> index 15ad1ad..3f6ab89 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
> @@ -279,6 +279,7 @@
> reg = <0x4c>;
> interrupt-parent = <&gpio>;
> interrupts = <226 0x08>; /* gpio PCC2 */
> + #sensor-cells = <1>;
> };
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> index de5a476..0abdedc 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@
> #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/thermal.h>
>
> /*
> * Addresses to scan
> @@ -182,6 +183,15 @@ enum chips { lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, max6659, adt7461, max6680,
> #define LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT (1 << 7) /* Broken alert */
>
> /*
> + * Thermal framework
> + */
> +enum lm90_thresholds {
> + LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS = 0, /* threshold 0: low limits */
> + LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS, /* threshold 1: high limits */
> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS
> +};
> +
> +/*
> * Driver data (common to all clients)
> */
>
> @@ -377,6 +387,9 @@ struct lm90_data {
> s16 temp11[TEMP11_REG_NUM];
> u8 temp_hyst;
> u16 alarms; /* bitvector (upper 8 bits for max6695/96) */
> +
> + struct thermal_sensor *ts_remote;
> + struct thermal_sensor *ts_local;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -1493,12 +1506,151 @@ static irqreturn_t lm90_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> +static int lm90_read_remote_temp(struct thermal_sensor *ts, long *temp)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> +
> + _show_temp11(dev, TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP, (int *)temp);
As Guenter pointed, this might break. Since you introduced _show_temp11
in a previous patch, you should revise it to take a long * as third
argument (or even better, return a long). Or if you cannot do that for
some reason, use a temporary int and affect temp properly (*temp =
temp_int).
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int lm90_read_remote_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int th_index,
> + long *val)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> + int index;
> +
> + switch (th_index) {
> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* remote low limit */
> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW;
> + break;
> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* remote high limit */
> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH;
> + break;
> + default:
> + dev_err(dev, "read remote threshold failed.\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + _show_temp11(dev, index, (int *)val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int lm90_write_remote_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int th_index,
> + long val)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> + int nr, index;
> +
> + switch (th_index) {
> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* remote low limit */
> + nr = NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW;
> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW;
> + break;
> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* remote high limit */
> + nr = NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_HIGH;
> + index = TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH;
> + break;
> + default:
> + dev_err(dev, "write remote threshold failed.\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + _set_temp11(dev, nr, index, val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct thermal_sensor_ops remote_ops = {
> + .get_temp = lm90_read_remote_temp,
> + .get_threshold = lm90_read_remote_threshold,
> + .set_threshold = lm90_write_remote_threshold,
> +};
> +
> +static int lm90_read_local_temp(struct thermal_sensor *ts, long *temp)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> +
> + _show_temp11(dev, TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP, (int *)temp);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int lm90_read_local_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int th_index,
> + long *val)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> + int index;
> +
> + switch (th_index) {
> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* local low limit */
> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW;
> + break;
> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* local high limit */
> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH;
> + break;
I think the comments are unneeded here, the macro name should be
explicit enough.
> + default:
> + dev_err(dev, "read local threshold failed.\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + _show_temp8(dev, index, (int *)val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int lm90_write_local_threshold(struct thermal_sensor *ts, int th_index,
> + long val)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client = ts->devdata;
> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> + int index;
> +
> + switch (th_index) {
> + case LM90_LOW_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* local low limit */
> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW;
> + break;
> + case LM90_HIGH_THRESHOLDS:
> + /* local high limit */
> + index = TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH;
> + break;
> + default:
> + dev_err(dev, "write local threshold failed.\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + _set_temp8(dev, index, val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct thermal_sensor_ops local_ops = {
> + .get_temp = lm90_read_local_temp,
> + .get_threshold = lm90_read_local_threshold,
> + .set_threshold = lm90_write_local_threshold,
> +};
> +
> static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> {
> struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(dev->parent);
> struct lm90_data *data;
> + struct node_args np_args;
> int err;
>
> data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(struct lm90_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -1576,12 +1728,38 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> "lm90", data);
> if (err < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "cannot request interrupt\n");
> - goto exit_remove_files;
> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
> }
> }
>
> + np_args.np = dev->of_node;
> + np_args.index = 0;
> + data->ts_remote = thermal_sensor_register("lm90_remote",
> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS,
> + &np_args,
> + &remote_ops, client);
> + if (IS_ERR(data->ts_remote)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot register sensor to thermal framework\n");
> + err = -EINVAL;
When don't you return the error code provided by
thermal_sensor_register, e.g. err = PTR_ERR(data->ts_remote) ?
> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
> + }
> +
> + np_args.index = 1;
> + data->ts_local = thermal_sensor_register("lm90_local",
> + LM90_NUM_THRESHOLDS,
> + &np_args,
> + &local_ops, client);
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(data->ts_local)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot register sensor to thermal framework\n");
> + err = -EINVAL;
Same thing here.
> + goto exit_unregister_hwmon;
> + }
> +
> return 0;
>
> +exit_unregister_hwmon:
> + hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
> exit_remove_files:
> lm90_remove_files(client, data);
> exit_restore:
> @@ -1594,6 +1772,8 @@ static int lm90_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>
> free_irq(client->irq, data);
> + thermal_sensor_unregister(data->ts_remote);
> + thermal_sensor_unregister(data->ts_local);
Ideally you would unregister your sensors in the reverse order they have
been registered, but I'm being picky here.
Alex.
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list