Re: [PATCH/RFC] hwmon: Add support for W83667HG-B

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Fri Jul 02 2010 - 04:07:57 EST

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:20:11AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:02:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > This patch adds support for W83667HG-B to the w83627ehf driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Key relevant difference between W83667HG and W83667HG-B are the Chip ID as well
> > as the fan output and step output register addresses. Those differences are
> > addressed with this patch.
> >
> > There are other relevant changes in the mapping of input sensors to fan
> > control (W83667HG datasheet chapter 8.7, W83667HG-B datasheet chapter 8.5).
> > However, control of those mappings is not implemented in the driver, thus the
> > respective changes should not have an impact on driver operation.
> >
> > Changes made in this patch are based on information from datasheets only. The
> > patch has not yet been tested with real hardware. The patch must be tested with
> > real hardware before it is integrated, and is thus submitted as RFC.
>
> Thanks for doing this. Quick review:
>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > index 0dcaba9..074e15b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> > w83627dhg 9 5 4 3 0xa020 0xc1 0x5ca3
> > w83627dhg-p 9 5 4 3 0xb070 0xc1 0x5ca3
> > w83667hg 9 5 3 3 0xa510 0xc1 0x5ca3
> > + w83667hg-b 9 5 3 3 0xb350 0xc1 0x5ca3
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -55,7 +56,7 @@
> > #include <linux/io.h>
> > #include "lm75.h"
> >
> > -enum kinds { w83627ehf, w83627dhg, w83627dhg_p, w83667hg };
> > +enum kinds { w83627ehf, w83627dhg, w83627dhg_p, w83667hg, w83667hg_b };
> >
> > /* used to set data->name = w83627ehf_device_names[data->sio_kind] */
> > static const char * w83627ehf_device_names[] = {
> > @@ -63,6 +64,7 @@ static const char * w83627ehf_device_names[] = {
> > "w83627dhg",
> > "w83627dhg",
> > "w83667hg",
> > + "w83667hg-b",
>
> Dashes aren't allowed in hwmon device names. For consistency with what
> we did for the W83627DHG-Pg, you should simply drop the "-b". It's a small
> detail of little interest for the user anyway.
>
Ok. Actually, since the only real difference was in the registers which
are not not used anywhere, I'll drop the enum type (w83667hg_b) as well.

I'll also add a check for the HG-I.

> > };
> >
> > static unsigned short force_id;
> > @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(force_id, "Override the detected device ID");
> > #define SIO_W83627DHG_ID 0xa020
> > #define SIO_W83627DHG_P_ID 0xb070
> > #define SIO_W83667HG_ID 0xa510
> > +#define SIO_W83667HG_B_ID 0xb350
> > #define SIO_ID_MASK 0xFFF0
> >
> > static inline void
> > @@ -201,8 +204,17 @@ static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_TOLERANCE[] = { 0x07, 0x07, 0x14, 0x62 };
> > static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_START_OUTPUT[] = { 0x0a, 0x0b, 0x16, 0x65 };
> > static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STOP_OUTPUT[] = { 0x08, 0x09, 0x15, 0x64 };
> > static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STOP_TIME[] = { 0x0c, 0x0d, 0x17, 0x66 };
> > -static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT[] = { 0xff, 0x67, 0xff, 0x69 };
> > -static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT[] = { 0xff, 0x68, 0xff, 0x6a };
> > +
> > +static const u8 *W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT;
> > +static const u8 *W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT;
> > +
> > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_COMMON[]
> > + = { 0xff, 0x67, 0xff, 0x69 };
> > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_COMMON[]
> > + = { 0xff, 0x68, 0xff, 0x6a };
> > +
> > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_W83667_B[] = { 0x67, 0x69, 0x6b };
> > +static const u8 W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_W83667_B[] = { 0x68, 0x6a, 0x6c };
>
> Is it just me or these arrays aren't used anywhere?
>
Yes, you are right. For some reason I thought they were used.

> I think I would just drop them. The "0xff" are suspicious in the
> original arrays, and the size difference between the common and
> W83667HG-B cases is tricky. Anyone willing to add support for this
> feature will need to read the datasheets anyway, so you don't add any
> value by including the register addresses here.
>
Agreed. I'll drop the arrays.

> >
> > /*
> > * Conversions
> > @@ -1343,22 +1355,35 @@ static int __devinit w83627ehf_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > /* 627EHG and 627EHF have 10 voltage inputs; 627DHG and 667HG have 9 */
> > data->in_num = (sio_data->kind == w83627ehf) ? 10 : 9;
> > /* 667HG has 3 pwms */
> > - data->pwm_num = (sio_data->kind == w83667hg) ? 3 : 4;
> > + data->pwm_num = (sio_data->kind == w83667hg
> > + || sio_data->kind == w83667hg_b) ? 3 : 4;
> >
> > /* Check temp3 configuration bit for 667HG */
> > - if (sio_data->kind == w83667hg) {
> > + if (sio_data->kind == w83667hg || sio_data->kind == w83667hg_b) {
> > data->temp3_disable = w83627ehf_read_value(data,
> > W83627EHF_REG_TEMP_CONFIG[1]) & 0x01;
> > data->in6_skip = !data->temp3_disable;
> > }
> >
> > + if (sio_data->kind == w83667hg_b) {
> > + W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT
> > + = W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_W83667_B;
> > + W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT
> > + = W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_W83667_B;
> > + } else {
> > + W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT
> > + = W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT_COMMON;
> > + W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT
> > + = W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT_COMMON;
> > + }
>
> That's not correct. It would be valid (although totally unexpected) to
> have two different chips on the same system. Thus
> W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT and W83627EHF_REG_FAN_STEP_OUTPUT
> shouldn't be global pointers but per-device pointers. You can simply
> add them to the data structure.
>
Basic idea was not to change W83627EHF_REG_FAN_MAX_OUTPUT, but you are right,
it should be per-device pointers (if used).

> But as said above, the easier is probably to just drop them.
>
Yes, that is what I'll do.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/