On 12/15/2018 06:38 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> 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).
This doesn't work with the counters, it only works with flags. The array
contains both.
> 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).
I added HWMON_T_CRIT_ALARM and HWMON_I_LCRIT_ALARM for
phy_overtemp_error and phy_undervolt_error respectively.
Are there any other hwmon attributes I can use to replace the flags in
the tja11xx_hw_stats array ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
