Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 06/16] hwmon: tmp102: expose to thermal fw via DT nodes

[Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7688 bytes --]

On 18-09-2013 11:57, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:54:18AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> On 18-09-2013 11:17, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>> On 18-09-2013 07:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:29:45PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-09-2013 19:33, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/15/2013 03:02 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>>>>>> This patch adds to tmp102 temperature sensor the possibility to
>>>>>>>> expose itself as thermal zone device, registered on the thermal
>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The thermal zone is built only if a device tree node describing
>>>>>>>> a thermal zone for this sensor is present inside the tmp102 DT
>>>>>>>> node. Otherwise, the driver behavior will be the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> Cc: Guenter Roeck
>>>>>>>> <linux@roeck-us.net> Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Cc:
>>>>>>>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin
>>>>>>>> <eduardo.valentin@ti.com> --- drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c | 28
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c 
>>>>>>>> index d7b47ab..e432444 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c +++
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ #include
>>>>>>>> <linux/mutex.h> #include <linux/device.h> #include
>>>>>>>> <linux/jiffies.h> +#include <linux/thermal.h> +#include
>>>>>>>> <linux/of.h>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #define    DRIVER_NAME "tmp102"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -50,6 +52,7 @@
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> struct tmp102 { struct device *hwmon_dev; +    struct
>>>>>>>> thermal_zone_device *tz; struct mutex lock; u16 config_orig; 
>>>>>>>> unsigned long last_update; @@ -93,6 +96,19 @@ static struct
>>>>>>>> tmp102 *tmp102_update_device(struct i2c_client *client) return
>>>>>>>> tmp102; }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +static int tmp102_read_temp(void *dev, long *temp) +{ +
>>>>>>>> struct tmp102 *tmp102 =
>>>>>>>> tmp102_update_device(to_i2c_client(dev)); + +    if
>>>>>>>> (tmp102->temp[0] < 0) +        dev_warn(tmp102->hwmon_dev, +
>>>>>>>> "operating in negative temp: %d\n", tmp102->temp[0]); +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please drop this warning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done for both drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guenter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +    *temp = tmp102->temp[0]; + +    return 0; +} + static
>>>>>>>> ssize_t tmp102_show_temp(struct device *dev, struct
>>>>>>>> device_attribute *attr, char *buf) @@ -204,6 +220,16 @@ static
>>>>>>>> int tmp102_probe(struct i2c_client *client, goto
>>>>>>>> fail_remove_sysfs; }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +    tmp102->tz = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev,
>>>>>>>> 0, +                             &client->dev, +
>>>>>>>> tmp102_read_temp, NULL); +    if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz)) { +
>>>>>>>> dev_warn(&client->dev, +             "Could not parse thermal
>>>>>>>> data in device tree: %ld\n", +
>>>>>>>> PTR_ERR(tmp102->tz));
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please drop this warning. You already create error messages in 
>>>>>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(). That should be sufficient. The
>>>>>>> same applies to the lm75 patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Done for both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a side note, I would suggest to provide devm_ functions for 
>>>>>>> registration. We are introducing those for hwmon registration,
>>>>>>> which enables us to remove most _remove functions. It would be
>>>>>>> great if we can keep it that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. This side note is taken. Actually this is on my todo list
>>>>>> for quite a while. But I believe this should not block this series,
>>>>>> should it? I will be probably cleaning the thermal framework code
>>>>>> after this current work is accepted at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a higher level, I don't think it is a good idea to make
>>>>>>> thermal zones and thermal zone data mandatory. Many systems may
>>>>>>> neither need nor want it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I agree with you. Did you see something hard required in the
>>>>>> patch I sent. I made it so that it could continue the driver probe
>>>>>> without thermal zones, as you requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it is not mandatory you should not dump an error message to the
>>>>> console in the thermal registration function. Since you do, you at
>>>>> least consider it mandatory if that function is called.
>>>>>
>>>>> So please either drop the error message from the registration
>>>>> function or add a check into the drivers to only register into the
>>>>> thermal subsystem if there is a respective thermal entry for that
>>>>> sensor in the devicetree data.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are systes out there with literally dozens of temperature
>>>>> sensors. In many cases, those are purely for system health
>>>>> monitoring, not for thermal management. I don't want to end up in a
>>>>> situation where users complain about dozens of error messages on the
>>>>> console and no way to avoid it but providing dummy thermal subsystem
>>>>> data.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now I see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then I will rollback to the previous version in which lm sensors were
>>>> first probing for thermal properties within their dt node. Something like:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
>>>> index dc96598..cb1c663 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c
>>>> @@ -216,11 +216,13 @@ static int tmp102_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>>                 goto fail_remove_sysfs;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> -       tmp102->tz = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev, 0,
>>>> -                                                    &client->dev,
>>>> -                                                    tmp102_read_temp,
>>>> NULL);
>>>> -       if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz))
>>>> -               tmp102->tz = NULL;
>>>> +       if ((of_find_property(client->dev.of_node, "#sensor-cells", NULL)) {
>>>> +               tmp102->tz =
>>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&client->dev, 0,
>>>> +                                                            &client->dev,
>>>> +
>>>> tmp102_read_temp, NULL);
>>>> +               if (IS_ERR(tmp102->tz))
>>>> +                       tmp102->tz = NULL;
>>>> +       }
>>>>
>>>>         dev_info(&client->dev, "initialized\n");
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does it sound reasonable?
>>>>
>>> Personally I would prefer if the registration code fails silently.
>>> Pushing the above code into each driver is just adding the same code
>>> repeatedly all over the place.
>>
>> Fair enough. It becomes tedious and just duplicating code. I agree.
>>
>> So I will keep the v2 I just sent and remove the annoying error messages
>> from of-thermal.c while registering the sensors.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, each sensor instance will still result in an error if there
>>> is no global "thermal-zones" entry. Checking for that global entry
>>> in each driver would be even more excessive, and I just don't like
>>> that noisyness.
>>>
>>> Also, I think you'll need to create devicetree bindings documents
>>> for the two sensors.
>>>
>>
>> Why would I? There is only one extra property and that is already
>> documented. I think the sensor still falls into the dummy dt node.
>>
> I'll leave that up to the devicetree folks to decide.

OK. Fair enough. Let s see what they have to say. Mark, Pawel, Stephen?

Guenter, any other objections a part from those I already fixed?

> 
> Guenter
> 
> 


-- 
You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport)

Eduardo Valentin


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 295 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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