[PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

[PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

[Srinivas Pandruvada]

For INT3403 sensor PTYP field is mandatory. But some platforms didn't
have this field for sensors. This cause load failure for int3403 driver.

This change checks for the presence of _TMP method and if present, then
treats this device as a sensor.

Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/thermal/int340x_thermal/int3403_thermal.c | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/int340x_thermal/int3403_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/int340x_thermal/int3403_thermal.c
index c4890c9..8a7f24d 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/int340x_thermal/int3403_thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/int340x_thermal/int3403_thermal.c
@@ -238,8 +238,16 @@ static int int3403_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",
 				       NULL, &priv->type);
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
-		result = -EINVAL;
-		goto err;
+		unsigned long long tmp;
+
+		status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "_TMP",
+					       NULL, &tmp);
+		if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
+			result = -EINVAL;
+			goto err;
+		} else {
+			priv->type = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
+		}
 	}
 
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> For INT3403 sensor PTYP field is mandatory. But some platforms didn't
> have this field for sensors. This cause load failure for int3403 driver.
>
> This change checks for the presence of _TMP method and if present, then
> treats this device as a sensor.

>         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",
>                                        NULL, &priv->type);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> -               result = -EINVAL;
> -               goto err;

> +               unsigned long long tmp;

You may use &priv->type as temporary variable, though I would go other
way around:
declare tmp for function, then

    unsigned long long tmp;
...
    status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",  NULL, &tmp);
    if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
        status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "_TMP", NULL, &tmp);
        if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
            result = -EINVAL;
            goto err;
        }
        tmp = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
    }
    priv->type = tmp;

> +               } else {

This is redundant.

> +                       priv->type = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
> +               }
>         }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

[Srinivas Pandruvada]

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 13:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > For INT3403 sensor PTYP field is mandatory. But some platforms
> > didn't
> > have this field for sensors. This cause load failure for int3403
> > driver.
> > 
> > This change checks for the presence of _TMP method and if present,
> > then
> > treats this device as a sensor.
> > 
> >         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",
> >                                        NULL, &priv->type);
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > -               result = -EINVAL;
> > -               goto err;
> > 
> > +               unsigned long long tmp;
> You may use &priv->type as temporary variable, though I would go
> other
> way around:
> declare tmp for function, then
> 
>     unsigned long long tmp;
> ...
>     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",  NULL,
> &tmp);
>     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "_TMP",
> NULL, &tmp);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>             result = -EINVAL;
>             goto err;
>         }
>         tmp = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
>     }
>     priv->type = tmp;
> 
So what are we saving by doing this way?

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > 
> > +               } else {
> This is redundant.
> 
> > 
> > +                       priv->type = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
> > +               }
> >         }

Re: [PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 13:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
>> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:

>> > This change checks for the presence of _TMP method and if present,
>> > then
>> > treats this device as a sensor.
>> >
>> >         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",
>> >                                        NULL, &priv->type);
>> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> > -               result = -EINVAL;
>> > -               goto err;
>> >
>> > +               unsigned long long tmp;
>> You may use &priv->type as temporary variable, though I would go
>> other
>> way around:
>> declare tmp for function, then
>>
>>     unsigned long long tmp;
>> ...
>>     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",  NULL,
>> &tmp);
>>     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "_TMP",
>> NULL, &tmp);
>>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>             result = -EINVAL;
>>             goto err;
>>         }
>>         tmp = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
>>     }
>>     priv->type = tmp;
>>
> So what are we saving by doing this way?

We make priv->type assignment in one place.

That's the difference.

So, you may choose your way of course. It's not a big deal.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko