Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v3 2/2] hwmon: (lm63) Add support for

[Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31:29PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:37:48 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 15:29 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:52:45 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > LM96163 is an enhanced version of LM63 with improved PWM resolution. Add chip
> > > > detection code as well as support for improved PWM resolution if the chip is
> > > > configured to use it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/hwmon/lm63 |    8 ++++++++
> > > >  drivers/hwmon/Kconfig    |    4 ++--
> > > >  drivers/hwmon/lm63.c     |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > (...)
> > > > @@ -605,6 +619,23 @@ static void lm63_init_client(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > >  	if (data->pwm1_freq = 0)
> > > >  		data->pwm1_freq = 1;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * For LM96163, check if high resolution PWM is enabled.
> > > > +	 * Also, check if unsigned temperature format is enabled
> > > > +	 * and display a warning message if it is.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (data->kind = lm96163) {
> > > > +		u8 config_enhanced
> > > > +		  = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client,
> > > > +					     LM96163_REG_CONFIG_ENHANCED);
> > > > +		if ((config_enhanced & 0x10)
> > > > +		    && !(data->config_fan & 0x08) && data->pwm1_freq = 8)
> > > > +			data->pwm_highres = true;
> > > > +		if (config_enhanced & 0x08)
> > > > +			dev_warn(&client->dev,
> > > > +				 "Unsigned format for High and Crit setpoints enabled but not supported by driver");
> > > 
> > > Line too long and missing trailing newline. I fixed both, and queued
> > > the patch for kernel 3.3, thank you. Care to update wiki/Devices?
> > > 
> > I thought long lines are now accepted and recommended for strings, to
> > avoid breaking a string into multiple lines.
> 
> You appear to be right, I had missed that policy change, sorry. I've
> reverted the line split.
> 
> > No idea where the missing
> > newline comes from - checkpatch didn't report anything, and the patch
> > seems to be ok when I look at it.
> 
> I didn't mean a patch formatting error. I meant missing "\n" at the end
> of the log message itself. It would certainly make sense for checkpatch
> to warn about these, but so far it does not.
> 
Ah, you are right. Thanks for the clarification.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors