Re: [PATCH 1/3] hwmon: (coretemp) Introduce enum for attr index

["Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 20:47 -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:14:48PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/30/23 13:51, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > > Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index
> > > > of each
> > > > sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible
> > > > attributes.
> > > > 
> > > > No functional change.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in
> > > > degrees Celsius");
> > > >   #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO    2       /* Sysfs Base attr no
> > > > for coretemp */
> > > >   #define NUM_REAL_CORES                128     /* Number of
> > > > Real cores per cpu */
> > > >   #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH  28      /* String Length of
> > > > attrs */
> > > > -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS         4       /* Maximum no of basic
> > > > attrs */
> > > > -#define TOTAL_ATTRS            (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
> > > >   #define MAX_CORE_DATA         (NUM_REAL_CORES +
> > > > BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
> > > > +enum coretemp_attr_index {
> > > > +       ATTR_LABEL,
> > > > +       ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> > > > +       ATTR_TEMP,
> > > > +       ATTR_TJMAX,
> > > > +       ATTR_TTARGET,
> > > > +       TOTAL_ATTRS,                    /* Maximum no of
> > > > possible attrs */
> > > > +       MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic
> > > > attrs */
> > > 
> > > This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but
> > > defining a
> > > MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
> > > 
> > 
> > Complaining is easy. What do you suggest that would be better ?
> > 
> Fair enough.
> 
> How about 
> 
> ATTR_LABEL,
> ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> ATTR_TEMP,
> ATTR_TJMAX,
> MAX_CORE_ATTRS,         /* One more than TJMAX */
> ATTR_TTARGET = MAX_CORE_ATTRS,
> TOTAL_ATTRS
> 
> Each enum can be assigned any value, but this way they are just
> increasing
> order. 

ATTR_TTARGET is the next attribute after ATTR_TJMAX so it should be
right after ATTR_TJMAX.
MAX_CORE_ATTRS is the number of basic attributes so it should be
ATTR_TJMAX + 1.
TOTAL_ATTRS is the number of possible attributes so it should be
ATTR_TTARGET + 1

ATTR_LABEL,				// 0
ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,			// 1
ATTR_TEMP,				// 2
ATTR_TJMAX,				// 3
ATTR_TTARGET,				// 4
MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1,	// 4
TOTAL_ATTRS = ATTR_TTARGET + 1,		// 5

How about this one?

thanks,
rui