| Message ID | 20180322134311.19485-1-alvaro.gamez@hazent.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hi Alvaro, On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:43:11 +0100, Alvaro Gamez Machado wrote: > Since autodetection of this chip was removed, it makes sense to add prefix > max6635 so that the device can be instantiated by its actual name. > > Signed-off-by: Alvaro Gamez Machado <alvaro.gamez@hazent.com> > --- > drivers/hwmon/lm92.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c > index 18509b5af11e..d40fe5122e94 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ > */ > static const unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x48, 0x49, 0x4a, 0x4b, > I2C_CLIENT_END }; > +enum chips { lm92, max6635 }; > > /* The LM92 registers */ > #define LM92_REG_CONFIG 0x01 /* 8-bit, RW */ > @@ -329,8 +330,8 @@ static int lm92_probe(struct i2c_client *new_client, > */ > > static const struct i2c_device_id lm92_id[] = { > - { "lm92", 0 }, > - /* max6635 could be added here */ > + { "lm92", lm92 }, > + { "max6635", max6635 }, > { } > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lm92_id); As the driver doesn't treat the two devices differently, the enum isn't really needed. I don't really mind though, just a notice. Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> Please also update Documentation/hwmon/lm92 which currently claims that the max6635 must use "lm92" as prefix. Thanks,
Hi! On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:29:47PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > As the driver doesn't treat the two devices differently, the enum isn't > really needed. I don't really mind though, just a notice. Yeah, I just thought it looked cleaner this way. I thought also about adding an enum chips entry to struct lm92_data, but I didn't like that because there's no use for it right now, until (if) the driver is extended to support different but similar enough chips, so I just added the enum. > > Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > > Please also update Documentation/hwmon/lm92 which currently claims that > the max6635 must use "lm92" as prefix. Oh, I totally forgot about that. I'll be sending patch v2 in a couple of minutes. Thank you!
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c index 18509b5af11e..d40fe5122e94 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm92.c @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ */ static const unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x48, 0x49, 0x4a, 0x4b, I2C_CLIENT_END }; +enum chips { lm92, max6635 }; /* The LM92 registers */ #define LM92_REG_CONFIG 0x01 /* 8-bit, RW */ @@ -329,8 +330,8 @@ static int lm92_probe(struct i2c_client *new_client, */ static const struct i2c_device_id lm92_id[] = { - { "lm92", 0 }, - /* max6635 could be added here */ + { "lm92", lm92 }, + { "max6635", max6635 }, { } }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lm92_id);
Since autodetection of this chip was removed, it makes sense to add prefix max6635 so that the device can be instantiated by its actual name. Signed-off-by: Alvaro Gamez Machado <alvaro.gamez@hazent.com> --- drivers/hwmon/lm92.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)