Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] hwmon: (lm90) use macro defines for the statusbit

From: Jean Delvare
Date: Wed Oct 30 2013 - 11:33:42 EST

Hi Guenter,

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:33:22 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:57:27PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Unrelated to this patch, but Guenter, I am worried about the MAX6696
> > handling here. I realize that I am the one who accepted your code, but
> > now it looks wrong. Specifically:
> > * We check for (status2 & 0xfe) i.e. 7 alarm bits, but the code below
> > only reports 2 alarms bits. So if any of the 5 other alarm bits in
> > STATUS2 are, we may return true (chip is tripped) but not print the
> > cause.
> > * At least bits 1 and 2 of STATUS 2 fit totally fine in the driver as
> > it currently exists, so I can't think of any reason for not handling
> > them. Why are we not? Ideally we should print a message for every
> > alarm bit so that we never return "true" without printing a message.
> > Even though OT2 limits aren't handled by the driver...
> > * If you think this piece of code shouldn't deal with OT/THERM limits
> > because they do not trigger an SMBus alarm, this can be discussed,
> > but all chips should be handled the same in this respect then.
> > * Why in the first place is max6696's data->alert_alarms set to 0x187c
> > and not 0x1c7c? Including 1OPEN but not 2OPEN makes no sense.
> I am about to leave for vacation, so this will have to wait for a couple of
> weeks. I'll look at it after I am back.

Are you back now? ;-)

Jean Delvare
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at