On 08/08/2017 09:55, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 17:03 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The sensor id is unknown at init time and we use all id in the
>> authorized
>> MAX_SENSORS interval to register the sensor. On this SoC there is one
>> thermal-zone with one sensor on it. No need to spit on the console
>> everytime we
>> failed to register thermal sensors, information which is deliberaly
>> known as it
>> is part of the discovery process.
>>
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 0: -19
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor:
>> -19
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 1: -19
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor:
>> -19
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 3: -19
>> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor:
>> -19
>>
>> Remove the error messages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 12 ++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
>> b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
>> index f642966..2cc98c6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
>> @@ -187,6 +187,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_get_temp(void *_sensor,
>> int *temp)
>>
>> dev_dbg(&data->pdev->dev, "id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d,
>> thres=%d\n",
>> sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor-
>>> thres_temp);
>> +
>> + printk("id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d, thres=%d\n",
>> + sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor-
>>> thres_temp);
>
> what's this printk for?
Argh. It shouldn't be there.
>> /*
>> * Bind irq to sensor for two cases:
>> * Reenable alarm IRQ if temperature below threshold;
>> @@ -260,8 +263,6 @@ static int hisi_thermal_register_sensor(struct
>> platform_device *pdev,
>> if (IS_ERR(sensor->tzd)) {
>> ret = PTR_ERR(sensor->tzd);
>> sensor->tzd = NULL;
>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register sensor id
>> %d: %d\n",
>> - sensor->id, ret);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -352,10 +353,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> ret = hisi_thermal_register_sensor(pdev, data,
>> &data-
>>> sensors[i], i);
>> if (ret)
>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> - "failed to register thermal sensor:
>> %d\n", ret);
>> - else
>> - hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data-
>>> sensors[i], true);
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data->sensors[i], true);
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>
> With these removed, is there any other information in dmesg that
> suggests this failure?
The problem is there are always failures showed in dmesg. The init
function is based on the assumption there is HISI_MAX_SENSORS sensors
which is not true for the hi6220 and that raises at boot time errors.
Why HISI_MAX_SENSORS(=4) while there is only one on hi6220 AFAIK? and
this driver is only used for hi6220 (now).
That ends up with 3 errors in dmesg for nothing.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
