Hi Florian,

On 5/6/19 3:41 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
If the SCMI firmware implementation is reporting values in a scale that
is different from the HWMON units, we need to scale up or down the value
according to how far appart they are.

Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
---
  drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
index a80183a488c5..e9913509cb88 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c
@@ -18,6 +18,51 @@ struct scmi_sensors {
        const struct scmi_sensor_info **info[hwmon_max];
  };
+static enum hwmon_sensor_types scmi_types[] = {
+       [TEMPERATURE_C] = hwmon_temp,
+       [VOLTAGE] = hwmon_in,
+       [CURRENT] = hwmon_curr,
+       [POWER] = hwmon_power,
+       [ENERGY] = hwmon_energy,
+};
+
+static u64 scmi_hwmon_scale(const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor, u64 value)
+{
+       u64 scaled_value = value;

I don't think that variable is necessary.

+       s8 desired_scale;

Just scale ? Also, you could assign scale here directly, and subtract
the offset below. Then "n" would not be necessary.
Such as
        s8 scale = sensor->scale;    // assuming scale is s8
        ...
        case CURRENT:
                scale += 3;
        ...

That would also be less confusing, since it would avoid the double
negation.

+       int n, p;

+
+       switch (sensor->type) {
+       case TEMPERATURE_C:
+       case VOLTAGE:
+       case CURRENT:
+               /* fall through */
Unnecessary comment

+               desired_scale = -3;
+               break;
+       case POWER:
+       case ENERGY:
+               /* fall through */
Unnecessary comment.

+               desired_scale = -6;
+               break;
+       default:
+               return scaled_value;

Here we presumably want a scale of 0. However, if the scale passed
from SCMI is, say, -5 or +5, we return the original (unadjusted)
value. Seems to me we would still want to adjust the value to match
hwmon expectations. Am I missing something ?

+       }
+
+       n = (s8)sensor->scale - desired_scale;
+        if (n == 0)

Indentation seems off here.

+                return scaled_value;
+
+       for (p = 0; p < abs(n); p++) {
+               /* Need to scale up from sensor to HWMON */
+               if (n > 0)
+                       scaled_value *= 10;
+               else
+                       do_div(scaled_value, 10);
+       }

Something like

        factor = pow10(abs(scale));
        if (scale > 0)
                value *= factor;
        else
                do_div(value, factor);

would avoid the repeated abs() and do_div(). Unfortunately there is
no pow10() helper, so you would have to write that. Still, I think
that would be much more efficient.

Thanks,
Guenter

+
+        return scaled_value;
+}
+
  static int scmi_hwmon_read(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
                           u32 attr, int channel, long *val)
  {
@@ -30,7 +75,7 @@ static int scmi_hwmon_read(struct device *dev, enum 
hwmon_sensor_types type,
        sensor = *(scmi_sensors->info[type] + channel);
        ret = h->sensor_ops->reading_get(h, sensor->id, false, &value);
        if (!ret)
-               *val = value;
+               *val = scmi_hwmon_scale(sensor, value);
return ret;
  }
@@ -91,14 +136,6 @@ static int scmi_hwmon_add_chan_info(struct 
hwmon_channel_info *scmi_hwmon_chan,
        return 0;
  }
-static enum hwmon_sensor_types scmi_types[] = {
-       [TEMPERATURE_C] = hwmon_temp,
-       [VOLTAGE] = hwmon_in,
-       [CURRENT] = hwmon_curr,
-       [POWER] = hwmon_power,
-       [ENERGY] = hwmon_energy,
-};
-
  static u32 hwmon_attributes[] = {
        [hwmon_chip] = HWMON_C_REGISTER_TZ,
        [hwmon_temp] = HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,


Reply via email to