Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hwmon: (lm90) Add power control

[Wei Ni <wni-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 08/08/2013 04:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 11:56 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> The device lm90 can be controlled by the vdd rail.
>> Adding the power control support to power on/off the vdd rail.
>> And make sure that power is enabled before accessing the device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/hwmon/lm90.c |   49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index cdff742..306a348 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/err.h>
>>   #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>   #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Addresses to scan
>> @@ -302,6 +303,7 @@ static const struct lm90_params lm90_params[] = {
>>   struct lm90_data {
>>   	struct device *hwmon_dev;
>>   	struct mutex update_lock;
>> +	struct regulator *lm90_reg;
>>   	char valid; /* zero until following fields are valid */
>>   	unsigned long last_updated; /* in jiffies */
>>   	int kind;
>> @@ -1391,6 +1393,32 @@ static void lm90_init_client(struct i2c_client *client)
>>   		i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_CONFIG1, config);
>>   }
>>
>> +static void lm90_power_control(struct i2c_client *client, bool is_enable)
>> +{
>> +	struct lm90_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (!data->lm90_reg)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> +
> 
> This is only called during probe and remove, so the mutex is unnecessary.

I considered that we may call this function in suspend/resume routine,
so I add this mutex.
But as you said, currently we doesn't have these routine yet, the mutex
is unnecessary, so I will remove it.

> 
>> +	if (is_enable)
>> +		ret = regulator_enable(data->lm90_reg);
>> +	else
>> +		ret = regulator_disable(data->lm90_reg);
>> +
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		dev_err(&client->dev,
>> +			"Error in %s rail vdd, error %d\n",
>> +			(is_enable) ? "enabling" : "disabling", ret);
>> +	else
>> +		dev_info(&client->dev, "success in %s rail vdd\n",
>> +			 (is_enable) ? "enabling" : "disabling");
>> +
> which reduces the function to (pretty much unnecessary) messages and an if statement
> which you only need because you have the function.
> 
> You should just call regulator_enable in probe and regulator_disable in remove.

Ok, I will remove these messages and this function.

> 
> Guenter
> 
>> +	mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>   		      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>   {
>> @@ -1406,6 +1434,20 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>   	i2c_set_clientdata(client, data);
>>   	mutex_init(&data->update_lock);
>>
>> +	data->lm90_reg = regulator_get(&client->dev, "vdd");
> 
> You should use devm_regulator_get(). Then you also don't need the call to regulator_put().

Oh, yes, you are right, I will do it.

> 
>> +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(data->lm90_reg)) {
> 
> The function never returns NULL except if the regulator subsystem is not configured,
> so IS_ERR() is more appropriate.
> 
> If the regulator subsystem is not configured, you especially don't need or want
> to pollute the log with an error message.
> 
>> +		if (PTR_ERR(data->lm90_reg) == -ENODEV)
>> +			dev_info(&client->dev,
>> +				 "No regulator found for vdd. Assuming vdd is always powered.");
>> +		else
>> +			dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> +				 "Error [%ld] in getting the regulator handle for vdd.\n",
>> +				 PTR_ERR(data->lm90_reg));
> 
> I consider the messages unnecessary and confusing. You are polluting the log
> of pretty much every PC user who has one of the supported chips in the system,
> and of everyone else not using regulators for this chip.

Ok, I will remove these codes.
So I will write something like:
if (!IS_ERR(data->lm90_reg)) {
    ret = regulator_enable(data->lm90_reg);
    if (ret < 0) {
        dev_err();
        return ret;
    }
} else {
    if (PTR_ERR(data->lm90_reg) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
        return -EPRPBE_DEFER;

        data->lm90_reg = !!IS_ERR(data->lm90_reg);
}

> 
>> +		data->lm90_reg = NULL;
> 
> As pointed out, this is unnecessary, and you should handle -EPROBE_DEFER correctly.

I think get_regulator() will return error values, not only
-EPROBE_DEFER, so we should set data->lm90_reg to NULL to handle other
error values.

> 
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	lm90_power_control(client, true);
>> +
>>   	/* Set the device type */
>>   	data->kind = id->driver_data;
>>   	if (data->kind == adm1032) {
>> @@ -1473,6 +1515,10 @@ exit_remove_files:
>>   	lm90_remove_files(client, data);
>>   exit_restore:
>>   	lm90_restore_conf(client, data);
>> +	lm90_power_control(client, false);
>> +	if (data->lm90_reg)
>> +		regulator_put(data->lm90_reg);
>> +
>>   	return err;
>>   }
>>
>> @@ -1483,6 +1529,9 @@ static int lm90_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>   	hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
>>   	lm90_remove_files(client, data);
>>   	lm90_restore_conf(client, data);
>> +	lm90_power_control(client, false);
>> +	if (data->lm90_reg)
>> +		regulator_put(data->lm90_reg);
>>
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>
>