Re: [PATCH 1/2] Wrong ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT for linux-2.6.30 adt7462 hwmon driver

Darrick J. Wong

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 2:30:02 PM12/16/09

to

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:58:32AM -0800, Ray Copeland wrote:
> From: Ray Copeland <ray.co...@aprius.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Wrong ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT for linux-2.6.30 adt7462 hwmon driver
>
> Description:
>
> The #define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT is wrong, it should be 13 not 12. All the
<snip>
> -#define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT 13
> +#define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT 12

Uh... I think this patch is reversed? This part of the diff replaces 13 with
12, which is the opposite of what I think you want.

--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Jean Delvare

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:20:02 AM12/17/09

to

Hi Ray,

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:26:19 -0800, Ray Copeland wrote:
> From: Ray Copeland <ray.co...@aprius.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Wrong ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT for linux-2.6.30 adt7462 hwmon driver
>
> Description:
>
> The #define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT is wrong, it should be 13 not 12. All the

> for loops that use this as a limit count are of the typical form, "for
> (n = 0; n < ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT; n++)", so to loop through all voltages
> w/o missing the last one it is necessary for the count to be one greater
> than it is. (Specifically, you will miss the +1.5V 3GPIO input with count
> = 12 vs. 13.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Ray Copeland <ray.co...@aprius.com>
>
> Diff with changes vs. original adt7462.c 2.6.30 version:
>
> --- adt7462.c.orig 2009-12-15 15:51:05.000000000 -0800
> +++ adt7462.c.volt_count 2009-12-16 14:06:01.000000000 -0800
> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@
> *
> * Some, but not all, of these voltages have low/high limits.
> */
> -#define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT 12
> +#define ADT7462_VOLT_COUNT 13
>
> #define ADT7462_VENDOR 0x41
> #define ADT7462_DEVICE 0x62

While the patch looks functionally correct, it is horribly broken in
its format. You sent a HTML mail instead of only plain text. Your
mailer turned the tabs into spaces. And the paths are missing from the
patch header.

Please learn how to send proper patches that kernel maintainers can
apply. Documentation/SubmittingPatches is a good start.

--
Jean Delvare

Ray Copeland

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 12:40:02 PM12/17/09

to

Hi, Jean, thanks for letting me know. This is my first time sending a
patch, and I should have sent
it first to Darrick to have him review it before I posted directly to
the group. He told me how to
rework it properly so that I will do it right next time.

Sorry if this caused any problem for you.

Regards,

Ray Copeland

Jean Delvare

unread,

Jan 12, 2010, 5:30:02 AM1/12/10

to

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:37:32 -0800, Ray Copeland wrote:
> Hi, Jean, thanks for letting me know. This is my first time sending a
> patch, and I should have sent
> it first to Darrick to have him review it before I posted directly to
> the group. He told me how to
> rework it properly so that I will do it right next time.

Apparently this patch got lost? Ray, care to resubmit with proper
formatting so that I can apply it?

Thanks,