Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index of each
sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible attributes.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
---
drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
@@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in degrees Celsius");
#define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO 2 /* Sysfs Base attr no for coretemp */
#define NUM_REAL_CORES 128 /* Number of Real cores per cpu */
#define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH 28 /* String Length of attrs */
-#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS 4 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
-#define TOTAL_ATTRS (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
#define MAX_CORE_DATA (NUM_REAL_CORES + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
+enum coretemp_attr_index {
+ ATTR_LABEL,
+ ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
+ ATTR_TEMP,
+ ATTR_TJMAX,
+ ATTR_TTARGET,
+ TOTAL_ATTRS, /* Maximum no of possible attrs */
+ MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
+};
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
#define for_each_sibling(i, cpu) \
for_each_cpu(i, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu))
--
2.34.1
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index of each
> sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible attributes.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in degrees Celsius");
> #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO 2 /* Sysfs Base attr no for coretemp */
> #define NUM_REAL_CORES 128 /* Number of Real cores per cpu */
> #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH 28 /* String Length of attrs */
> -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS 4 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
> -#define TOTAL_ATTRS (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
> #define MAX_CORE_DATA (NUM_REAL_CORES + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
>
> +enum coretemp_attr_index {
> + ATTR_LABEL,
> + ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> + ATTR_TEMP,
> + ATTR_TJMAX,
> + ATTR_TTARGET,
> + TOTAL_ATTRS, /* Maximum no of possible attrs */
> + MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but defining a
MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
> +};
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> #define for_each_sibling(i, cpu) \
> for_each_cpu(i, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu))
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On 11/30/23 13:51, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
>> Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index of each
>> sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible attributes.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
>> index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
>> @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in degrees Celsius");
>> #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO 2 /* Sysfs Base attr no for coretemp */
>> #define NUM_REAL_CORES 128 /* Number of Real cores per cpu */
>> #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH 28 /* String Length of attrs */
>> -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS 4 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
>> -#define TOTAL_ATTRS (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
>> #define MAX_CORE_DATA (NUM_REAL_CORES + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
>>
>> +enum coretemp_attr_index {
>> + ATTR_LABEL,
>> + ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
>> + ATTR_TEMP,
>> + ATTR_TJMAX,
>> + ATTR_TTARGET,
>> + TOTAL_ATTRS, /* Maximum no of possible attrs */
>> + MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
>
> This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but defining a
> MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
>
Complaining is easy. What do you suggest that would be better ?
Guenter
>> +};
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> #define for_each_sibling(i, cpu) \
>> for_each_cpu(i, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu))
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:14:48PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/30/23 13:51, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index of each
> > > sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible attributes.
> > >
> > > No functional change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in degrees Celsius");
> > > #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO 2 /* Sysfs Base attr no for coretemp */
> > > #define NUM_REAL_CORES 128 /* Number of Real cores per cpu */
> > > #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH 28 /* String Length of attrs */
> > > -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS 4 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
> > > -#define TOTAL_ATTRS (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
> > > #define MAX_CORE_DATA (NUM_REAL_CORES + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
> > > +enum coretemp_attr_index {
> > > + ATTR_LABEL,
> > > + ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> > > + ATTR_TEMP,
> > > + ATTR_TJMAX,
> > > + ATTR_TTARGET,
> > > + TOTAL_ATTRS, /* Maximum no of possible attrs */
> > > + MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic attrs */
> >
> > This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but defining a
> > MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
> >
>
> Complaining is easy. What do you suggest that would be better ?
>
Fair enough.
How about
ATTR_LABEL,
ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
ATTR_TEMP,
ATTR_TJMAX,
MAX_CORE_ATTRS, /* One more than TJMAX */
ATTR_TTARGET = MAX_CORE_ATTRS,
TOTAL_ATTRS
Each enum can be assigned any value, but this way they are just increasing
order.
On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 20:47 -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:14:48PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/30/23 13:51, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > > Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index
> > > > of each
> > > > sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible
> > > > attributes.
> > > >
> > > > No functional change.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > > @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in
> > > > degrees Celsius");
> > > > #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO 2 /* Sysfs Base attr no
> > > > for coretemp */
> > > > #define NUM_REAL_CORES 128 /* Number of
> > > > Real cores per cpu */
> > > > #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH 28 /* String Length of
> > > > attrs */
> > > > -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS 4 /* Maximum no of basic
> > > > attrs */
> > > > -#define TOTAL_ATTRS (MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
> > > > #define MAX_CORE_DATA (NUM_REAL_CORES +
> > > > BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
> > > > +enum coretemp_attr_index {
> > > > + ATTR_LABEL,
> > > > + ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> > > > + ATTR_TEMP,
> > > > + ATTR_TJMAX,
> > > > + ATTR_TTARGET,
> > > > + TOTAL_ATTRS, /* Maximum no of
> > > > possible attrs */
> > > > + MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1 /* Maximum no of basic
> > > > attrs */
> > >
> > > This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but
> > > defining a
> > > MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
> > >
> >
> > Complaining is easy. What do you suggest that would be better ?
> >
> Fair enough.
>
> How about
>
> ATTR_LABEL,
> ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> ATTR_TEMP,
> ATTR_TJMAX,
> MAX_CORE_ATTRS, /* One more than TJMAX */
> ATTR_TTARGET = MAX_CORE_ATTRS,
> TOTAL_ATTRS
>
> Each enum can be assigned any value, but this way they are just
> increasing
> order.
ATTR_TTARGET is the next attribute after ATTR_TJMAX so it should be
right after ATTR_TJMAX.
MAX_CORE_ATTRS is the number of basic attributes so it should be
ATTR_TJMAX + 1.
TOTAL_ATTRS is the number of possible attributes so it should be
ATTR_TTARGET + 1
ATTR_LABEL, // 0
ATTR_CRIT_ALARM, // 1
ATTR_TEMP, // 2
ATTR_TJMAX, // 3
ATTR_TTARGET, // 4
MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1, // 4
TOTAL_ATTRS = ATTR_TTARGET + 1, // 5
How about this one?
thanks,
rui
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:29:24AM -0800, Zhang, Rui wrote: [snip] > > > > How about > > > > ATTR_LABEL, > > ATTR_CRIT_ALARM, > > ATTR_TEMP, > > ATTR_TJMAX, > > MAX_CORE_ATTRS, /* One more than TJMAX */ > > ATTR_TTARGET = MAX_CORE_ATTRS, > > TOTAL_ATTRS > > > > Each enum can be assigned any value, but this way they are just > > increasing > > order. > > ATTR_TTARGET is the next attribute after ATTR_TJMAX so it should be > right after ATTR_TJMAX. > MAX_CORE_ATTRS is the number of basic attributes so it should be > ATTR_TJMAX + 1. > TOTAL_ATTRS is the number of possible attributes so it should be > ATTR_TTARGET + 1 > > ATTR_LABEL, // 0 > ATTR_CRIT_ALARM, // 1 > ATTR_TEMP, // 2 > ATTR_TJMAX, // 3 > ATTR_TTARGET, // 4 > MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1, // 4 > TOTAL_ATTRS = ATTR_TTARGET + 1, // 5 > > How about this one? Sorry for the delay... yes, this sounds fine.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.