From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8978C04A6B for ; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:10:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E2A20989 for ; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:10:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="f9p94f0y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726687AbfEHVKU (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 17:10:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:43367 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725910AbfEHVKU (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 17:10:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id c6so84202pfa.10; Wed, 08 May 2019 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=07BOO7U5xcapfXnneDkgQZbWTgcEELbJBQkQs75ET+I=; b=f9p94f0yEajnquy6qgPWpbX/r9AqRq8MGMxzjYW+ZKDzIoqzAPhoN23BTCY7E5c0z1 Jw4WtWkrsEuq8qZuswzE65cW0QgHTaqzYLeL/gb1aBSIpp14pNuAekpKMhJ/oUjIlHwl V22C3AgKvmSqePmFLAKjW7KqAJeRx/90sgCY6D7sONo57GkiM1wFsQXZEDMQjLN2NV2l zVO7v1kEMX6YUkeixgrZOOdVpduYJHE9+U9sDOXLqbBJHSw2HkmaMBe+X9WB3ARCwDn3 0bTZEQrwY9yZL9d6c3L2vIpYU9JlYHDho0CXzl+8qU/Rx1rHvwJTjV1RssxdbhMJl6WZ At0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=07BOO7U5xcapfXnneDkgQZbWTgcEELbJBQkQs75ET+I=; b=ofuIAQYd/8BeBYbHoxRWSW2Jbk1NW92uzpfb12jvyp9M+kLmqeiwQKd5Yhy3nauU2u zplEUYA1vZxqp/TXWC04zihffyLUBHUwTfheWetLyS3XG3hhvZjR6Z2HOJU/ubDO7j2i dUJ+7tB5+um17PeGY3f3V6BYpEOPG507QVo9+DajclD0dx0V27360dKkhgj2qR2lVLNt Pf5bzTazm3l1YqopJ016k3aPEDhXmhALeA1WLNz67XjY6sN7LjDBykM/DCaJ+pL/4kyL vWb8XvBvDi3ReBypKvVfaDeWbmtXo9eU6FgLOqFSkMGflLGcLQ0cQAGRaD3gXBxfdBtM 09QQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXM64KQRWkok8IAhThksGJW71A7pq6KW8KQ7MO2wzqZlkaJcx4d O1/lyAGzv4XUYu1luX5GU/AmtnWl X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPzHqkoKsaUvrCiik7J8XYWuRdshAizY9cMBTAAtCyDlW8ZS16ofvebzy7sM2sYQCF0cRBKQ== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6644:: with SMTP id z4mr417902pgv.300.1557349819400; Wed, 08 May 2019 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d67sm228765pfa.35.2019.05.08.14.10.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 May 2019 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 14:10:17 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Florian Fainelli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, Sudeep Holla , Jean Delvare , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "open list:HARDWARE MONITORING" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] hwmon: scmi: Scale values to target desired HWMON units Message-ID: <20190508211017.GA29998@roeck-us.net> References: <20190508184635.5054-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20190508184635.5054-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190508184635.5054-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-hwmon-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:46:35AM -0700, 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 Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck Question is which tree this series should go through. I am fine with arm. Thanks, Guenter > --- > drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c > index a80183a488c5..2c7b87edf5aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon.c > @@ -18,6 +18,47 @@ struct scmi_sensors { > const struct scmi_sensor_info **info[hwmon_max]; > }; > > +static inline u64 __pow10(u8 x) > +{ > + u64 r = 1; > + > + while (x--) > + r *= 10; > + > + return r; > +} > + > +static int scmi_hwmon_scale(const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor, u64 *value) > +{ > + s8 scale = sensor->scale; > + u64 f; > + > + switch (sensor->type) { > + case TEMPERATURE_C: > + case VOLTAGE: > + case CURRENT: > + scale += 3; > + break; > + case POWER: > + case ENERGY: > + scale += 6; > + break; > + default: > + break; > + } > + > + if (abs(scale) > 19) > + return -E2BIG; > + > + f = __pow10(abs(scale)); > + if (scale > 0) > + *value *= f; > + else > + *value = div64_u64(*value, f); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static int scmi_hwmon_read(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type, > u32 attr, int channel, long *val) > { > @@ -29,6 +70,10 @@ 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) > + return ret; > + > + ret = scmi_hwmon_scale(sensor, &value); > if (!ret) > *val = value; > > -- > 2.17.1 >