dt-bindings: hwmon: add tmp464.yaml
Subsystems (3)
Guenter Roeck
maintainerPATCH v7 1/2 dt-bindings: hwmon: add tmp464.yaml
From: Agathe Porte <[email protected]>
Add basic description of the tmp464 driver DT bindings.
---
v7:
- No change
v6:
- Model ti,n-factor as int32 instead of int8.
v5:
- Dropped ti,n-factor from channel@0 example. Added additional channel to examples to show positive ti,n-factor property.
v4:
- No changes
v3:
- Addedd support for TMP468.
- Changed number of channels from 0..3 (which was wrong anyway) to 0..8.
- Changed value range for ti,n-factor to int8, with an example for a negative value.
- Added myself as driver maintainer.
.../devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml | 114 ++++++++++++++++++ MAINTAINERS | 7 ++ 2 files changed, 121 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml new file +114 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: TMP464 and TMP468 temperature sensors + +maintainers: + - Agathe Porte <[email protected]> + +description: | + ±0.0625°C Remote and Local temperature sensor + https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tmp464.pdf + https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tmp468.pdf + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - ti,tmp464 + - ti,tmp468 + + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + '#address-cells': + const: 1 + + '#size-cells': + const: 0 + +required: + - compatible + - reg + +additionalProperties: false + +patternProperties: + "^channel@([0-8])$": + type: object + description: | + Represents channels of the device and their specific configuration. + + properties: + reg: + description: | + The channel number. 0 is local channel, 1-8 are remote channels. + items: + minimum: 0 + maximum: 8 + + label: + description: | + A descriptive name for this channel, like "ambient" or "psu". + + ti,n-factor: + description: | + The value (two's complement) to be programmed in the channel specific N correction register. + For remote channels only. + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/int32 + items: + minimum: -128 + maximum: 127 + + required: + - reg + + additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + i2c { + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + sensor@4b { + compatible = "ti,tmp464"; + reg = <0x4b>; + }; + }; + - | + i2c { + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + sensor@4b { + compatible = "ti,tmp464"; + reg = <0x4b>; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + channel@0 { + reg = <0x0>; + label = "local"; + }; + + channel@1 { + reg = <0x1>; + ti,n-factor = <(-10)>; + label = "external"; + }; + + channel@2 { + reg = <0x2>; + ti,n-factor = <0x10>; + label = "somelabel"; + }; + + channel@3 { + reg = <0x3>; + status = "disabled"; + }; + }; + };
MAINTAINERS +7 -0
@@ -19489,6 +19489,13 @@ S: Maintained F: Documentation/hwmon/tmp401.rst F: drivers/hwmon/tmp401.c +TMP464 HARDWARE MONITOR DRIVER +M: Agathe Porte <[email protected]> +M: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +S: Maintained +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml + TMP513 HARDWARE MONITOR DRIVER M: Eric Tremblay <[email protected]> L: [email protected]
Signature · 1 line
2.35.1
Guenter Roeck
maintainerPATCH v7 2/2 hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Add support for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468 temperature sensor ICs.
TI's TMP464 is an I2C temperature sensor chip. This chip is similar to TI's TMP421 chip, but with 16bit-wide registers (instead of 8bit-wide registers). The chip has one local sensor and four remote sensors. TMP468 is similar to TMP464 but has one local and eight remote sensors.
Originally-from: Agathe Porte <[email protected]>
---
v7:
- Added sysfs tempX_enable attributes.
- Fixed bad return in temperature read function
which causes a hangup on disabled channels.
v6:
- Found that the channel open status register is cleared on read and needs to be cached. Since the cache duration depends on the update interval, store the update interval locally and report the stored value instead of re-reading it from the chip.
- Reworked read and write functions to always acquire the update mutex to streamline the code.
- Read ti,n-factor property as s32.
v5:
- Dropped unused variable
v4:
- Fixed reading n-factor information from devicetree
[Use of_property_read_u8 instead of of_property_read_s32 to read the
property value, and write n-factor value into the upper 8 bit of the n-factor register]
- Fixed displaying label attributes
v3:
- Added support for TMP468
- Added support for various limits, temperature hysteresis, alarm attributes, and update interval
- Use regmap instead of local caching
- Use static chip configuration
- Unlock check if needed when loading driver, and lock it when unloading it
- Call tmp464_init_client() before calling tmp464_probe_from_dt() since the latter changes registers, which requires the chip to be unlocked.
- Restore configuration register when unloading driver
- ti,n-factor is optional, so don't fail if the property is not present
Notes:
- Tested with TMP464 and TMP468. Module tested for both chips. Devicetree code tested with rudimentary qemu implementation.
Documentation/hwmon/index.rst | 1 + Documentation/hwmon/tmp464.rst | 73 ++++ MAINTAINERS | 2 + drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 11 + drivers/hwmon/Makefile | 1 + drivers/hwmon/tmp464.c | 712 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 800 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/hwmon/tmp464.rst create mode 100644 drivers/hwmon/tmp464.c
Documentation/hwmon/index.rst +1 -0
@@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ Hardware Monitoring Kernel Drivers tmp108 tmp401 tmp421 + tmp464 tmp513 tps23861 tps40422
Documentation/hwmon/tmp464.rst new file +73 -0
73 lines not on this page · raw message
MAINTAINERS +2 -0
@@ -19495,6 +19495,8 @@ M: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> L: [email protected] S: Maintained F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml +F: Documentation/hwmon/tmp464.rst +F: drivers/hwmon/tmp464.c TMP513 HARDWARE MONITOR DRIVER M: Eric Tremblay <[email protected]>
drivers/hwmon/Kconfig +11 -0
@@ -1979,6 +1979,17 @@ config SENSORS_TMP421 This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will be called tmp421. +config SENSORS_TMP464 + tristate "Texas Instruments TMP464 and compatible" + depends on I2C + select REGMAP_I2C + help + If you say yes here you get support for Texas Instruments TMP464 + and TMP468 temperature sensor chips. + + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module + will be called tmp464. + config SENSORS_TMP513 tristate "Texas Instruments TMP513 and compatibles" depends on I2C
drivers/hwmon/Makefile +1 -0
@@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP103) += tmp103.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP108) += tmp108.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP401) += tmp401.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP421) += tmp421.o +obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP464) += tmp464.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TMP513) += tmp513.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_VEXPRESS) += vexpress-hwmon.o obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_VIA_CPUTEMP)+= via-cputemp.o
drivers/hwmon/tmp464.c new file +712 -0
712 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.35.1
Guenter Roeck
maintainerRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Quoted 9 lines · Guenter Roeck
Add support for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468 temperature sensor ICs.
TI's TMP464 is an I2C temperature sensor chip. This chip is similar to TI's TMP421 chip, but with 16bit-wide registers (instead of 8bit-wide registers). The chip has one local sensor and four remote sensors. TMP468 is similar to TMP464 but has one local and eight remote sensors.
Quoted 4 lines
Originally-from: Agathe Porte <[email protected]>
Cc Agathe Porte <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Adamski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Any review / test feedback on this patch ? I would like to apply it before the commit window opens, but the time is getting short.
Thanks,
Guenter
Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Hi Guenter,
Le 02/03/2022 à 18:59, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 2 lines
Any review / test feedback on this patch ? I would like to apply it before the commit window opens, but the time is getting short.
I thought that you did receive the TMP464 samples and had the opportunity to test on it. I will test v7 on our hardware equipped with TMP464, verify that DT support works fine, and will reply to this email with my findings.
Bests.
Agathe.
Guenter Roeck
maintainerRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Quoted 8 lines · Agathe Porte
Hi Guenter,
Le 02/03/2022 à 18:59, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 2 lines
Any review / test feedback on this patch ? I would like to apply it before the commit window opens, but the time is getting short.
I thought that you did receive the TMP464 samples and had the opportunity to test on it. I will test v7 on our hardware equipped with TMP464, verify that DT support works fine, and will reply to this email with my findings.
Yes, I did, and thanks a lot for it! I even wrote a qemu emulation for the chip to be able to test the devicetree code.
Still, I need to have someone else confirm that I didn't mess up.
Thanks,
Guenter
Agathe Porte
Tested-byRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Le 3/3/2022 à 4:00 PM, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 12 lines · Agathe Porte
Quoted 8 lines
Hi Guenter,
Le 02/03/2022 à 18:59, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 2 lines
Any review / test feedback on this patch ? I would like to apply it before the commit window opens, but the time is getting short.
I thought that you did receive the TMP464 samples and had the opportunity to test on it. I will test v7 on our hardware equipped with TMP464, verify that DT support works fine, and will reply to this email with my findings.
Yes, I did, and thanks a lot for it! I even wrote a qemu emulation for the chip to be able to test the devicetree code.
Great!
Quoted 1 line
Still, I need to have someone else confirm that I didn't mess up.
I tested v7 on our hardware and the behavior seems to be the same as our previous, in-house driver, if that gives you a point of comparison. We only use temp*_input sysfs though.
No compilation warnings.
I can disable and enable sensors fine at runtime:
Quoted 14 lines
# cat temp*_input 43063 35813 34938 39313 29125 # echo 0 | tee temp*_enable 0 # cat temp*_input cat: temp1_input: No data available cat: temp2_input: No data available cat: temp3_input: No data available cat: temp4_input: No data available cat: temp5_input: No data available
Quoted 8 lines
# echo 1 | tee temp*_enable 1 # cat temp*_input 43063 35750 34875 39313 29188
For what it's worth:
Bests.
Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Quoted 52 lines · Agathe Porte
Le 3/3/2022 à 4:00 PM, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 7 lines · Agathe Porte
Quoted 6 lines
Hi Guenter,
Le 02/03/2022 à 18:59, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 2 lines
Any review / test feedback on this patch ? I would like to apply it before the commit window opens, but the time is getting short.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I thought that you did receive the TMP464 samples and had the opportunity to test on it. I will test v7 on our hardware equipped with TMP464, verify that DT support works fine, and will reply to this email with my findings.
Yes, I did, and thanks a lot for it! I even wrote a qemu emulation for the chip to be able to test the devicetree code.
Great!
Quoted 1 line
Still, I need to have someone else confirm that I didn't mess up.
I tested v7 on our hardware and the behavior seems to be the same as our previous, in-house driver, if that gives you a point of comparison. We only use temp*_input sysfs though.
No compilation warnings.
I can disable and enable sensors fine at runtime:
Quoted 14 lines
# cat temp*_input 43063 35813 34938 39313 29125 # echo 0 | tee temp*_enable 0 # cat temp*_input cat: temp1_input: No data available cat: temp2_input: No data available cat: temp3_input: No data available cat: temp4_input: No data available cat: temp5_input: No data availableQuoted 8 lines
# echo 1 | tee temp*_enable 1 # cat temp*_input 43063 35750 34875 39313 29188
Quoted 4 lines
For what it's worth:
Tested-by Agathe Porte <[email protected]>
Thanks a lot!
I applied the series to hwmon-next.
Guenter
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Guenter Roeck
maintainerRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Hi Agathe,
Quoted 11 lines · Agathe Porte
Hi,
Le 2/22/2022 à 11:36 PM, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 1 line
of_property_read_string(child,"label", &data->channel[channel].label);Upon trying to merge v7 in our codebase, our static analyzer tool detected that the return code of this function was not checked.
As I guess putting a label is optional, maybe we should add a
(void)on the same line just before the function call to clearly indicate that not checking the return value is intentional and that it is not a coding mistake?EDIT: As I was reading the implementation of
of_property_read_string[1], it will not touch the destination string in case of error. Which means that labels may sit uninitialized and contain garbage data?
Thanks for the feedback.
If of_property_read_string() returns an error, it will not set the pointer to &data->channel[channel].label, which by default is NULL because the data structure was allocated with devm_kzalloc(). That means tmp464_is_visible() will disable the label attribute. I don't see a problem with the current code.
There are lots of examples in the kernel where the return value from of_property_read_string() is silently ignored. Not a single one of those uses a (void) typecast. I don't really want to start making such changes just to make static analyzers happy.
Thanks,
Guenter
Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Hi Guenter,
Le 3/15/2022 à 2:22 AM, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 5 lines
If
of_property_read_string()returns an error, it will not set the pointer to &data->channel[channel].label, which by default is NULL because the data structure was allocated withdevm_kzalloc(). That meanstmp464_is_visible()will disable the label attribute. I don't see a problem with the current code.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that there is no problem on this point.
Quoted 4 lines
There are lots of examples in the kernel where the return value from
of_property_read_string()is silently ignored. Not a single one of those uses a (void) typecast. I don't really want to start making such changes just to make static analyzers happy.
I have to disagree here. Because something has always (not) be done in the past should not be a reason to (not) do it in the future out of pure habit. I did not suggest to add the (void) casts in existing code: I agree it would be a burden with no real added value.
But making static analyzers happy seems justified *for new code*. It also makes *other developers* more confident, because with the cast we are sure that not checking the return value is very intentional.
Please enlighten me if there are any downsides that I did not think of and that would block this one-line change.
Best regards,
Agathe.
Guenter Roeck
maintainerRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] hwmon: Add driver for Texas Instruments TMP464 and TMP468
Hi Agathe,
Quoted 16 lines · Agathe Porte
Hi Guenter,
Le 3/15/2022 à 2:22 AM, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
Quoted 5 lines
If
of_property_read_string()returns an error, it will not set the pointer to &data->channel[channel].label, which by default is NULL because the data structure was allocated withdevm_kzalloc(). That meanstmp464_is_visible()will disable the label attribute. I don't see a problem with the current code.Thanks for the explanation. I agree that there is no problem on this point.
Quoted 4 lines
There are lots of examples in the kernel where the return value from
of_property_read_string()is silently ignored. Not a single one of those uses a (void) typecast. I don't really want to start making such changes just to make static analyzers happy.
Quoted 6 lines
I have to disagree here. Because something has always (not) be done in the past should not be a reason to (not) do it in the future out of pure habit. I did not suggest to add the (void) casts in existing code: I agree it would be a burden with no real added value.
But making static analyzers happy seems justified *for new code*. It also makes *other developers* more confident, because with the cast we are sure that not checking the return value is very intentional.
Please enlighten me if there are any downsides that I did not think of and that would block this one-line change.
Changing the code now would require either a separate patch or a rebase of the hwmon-next tree. Rebasing the hwmon-next tree at this point of the release cycle (a few days before the commit window opens) is something I really don't want to do, leaving the option to add a separate patch for the change. That makes it identical to changing existing code to add the (void).
In addition to that, I do not agree that adding (void) really adds value here; it just says "this is done on purpose" because the static analyzer doesn't know better. 0-day stopped reporting this kind of perceived problem, presumably for good reason. Since the result of the function call is implied in setting or not setting the passed pointer, a return value check or adding (void) is not warranted. This would be different if the property was mandatory, but that is not the case here.
There are lots of other functions in the kernel where return values are not checked, for a variety of reasons. Functions where checking the return value is necessary/mandatory are tagged with __must_check. For others it is left to the caller to decide if a return value should be checked, and if it makes sense / adds value to add (void).
I'll give you another example: cancel_work_sync() and related functions. I am sure your static analyzer will complain about the failure to check its return value in almost all cases. A counter-example is, say, platform_driver_register(), where the return value should really be checked and a (void) typecast should be used if it is not checked on purpose. The problem is that static analyzers can not determine if the return value check is necessary, and should either leave it alone or make reports conditional on some command line option.
Overall we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thanks,
Guenter
Quoted 28 lines · Guenter Roeck
From: Agathe Porte <[email protected]>
Add basic description of the tmp464 driver DT bindings.
Signed-off-by Agathe Porte <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Adamski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>---
v7:
- No changev6:
- Model ti,n-factor as int32 instead of int8.v5:
- Dropped ti,n-factor from channel@0 example. Added additional channel to examples to show positive ti,n-factor property.v4:
- No changesv3:
- Addedd support for TMP468.
- Changed number of channels from 0..3 (which was wrong anyway) to 0..8.
- Changed value range for ti,n-factor to int8, with an example for a negative value.
- Added myself as driver maintainer.
Quoted 5 lines
.../devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml | 114 ++++++++++++++++++ MAINTAINERS | 7 ++ 2 files changed, 121 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp464.yaml