On 15.12.2018 18:01, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> +static struct tja11xx_phy_stats tja11xx_hw_stats[] = {
>> + { "phy_symbol_error_count", 20, 0, 0xffff },
>> + { "phy_overtemp_error", 21, 1, BIT(1) },
>> + { "phy_undervolt_error", 21, 3, BIT(3) },
>> + { "phy_polarity_detect", 25, 6, BIT(6) },
>> + { "phy_open_detect", 25, 7, BIT(7) },
>> + { "phy_short_detect", 25, 8, BIT(8) },
>
> Hi Marek
>
> You have a number of one bit counters here, which is pretty unusual.
> The names also don't really suggest they are counters.
>
Apart from few counters the values seem to be flags. I just think
it could be done in a little bit more readable form, e.g. instead of
{ "phy_short_detect", 25, 8, BIT(8) } use
{ "phy_short_detect", 25, BIT(8) } and in tja11xx_get_stats() then
use FIELD_GET (see linux/bitfield.h).
The idea of HWMON attributes sounds good to me because it allows
to use the flags to trigger actions in a structured way. And I
assume in case of e.g. "PHY undervolt" some monitoring system
would like to be informed (especially because we talk about
automotive here).
> Florian, Heiner, do we want to allow this?
>
> Andrew
>
