[lm-sensors] [PATCH 01/10] hwmon: (lm85) Fix function RANGE_TO_REG()

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Juerg,

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:08:45 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > Function RANGE_TO_REG() is broken. For a requested range of 2000 (2
> > degrees C), it will return an index value of 15, i.e. 80.0 degrees C,
> > instead of the expected index value of 0. All other values are handled
> > properly, just 2000 isn't.
> > 
> > The bug was introduced back in November 2004 by this patch:
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git;a=commit;h=1c28d80f1992240373099d863e4996cdd5d646d0
> > 
> > While this can be fixed easily with the current code, I'd rather
> > rewrite the whole function in a way which is more obviously correct.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org>
> > Cc: Justin Thiessen <jthiessen at penguincomputing.com>
> > ---
> > Note: this is the same patch as I already sent on April 3rd.
> > 
> >  drivers/hwmon/lm85.c |   25 +++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.25-rc8.orig/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c	2008-04-02 22:20:01.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.25-rc8/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c	2008-04-02 23:10:16.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -192,23 +192,20 @@ static int RANGE_TO_REG( int range )
> >  {
> >  	int i;
> >  
> > -	if ( range < lm85_range_map[0] ) { 
> > -		return 0 ;
> > -	} else if ( range > lm85_range_map[15] ) {
> > +	if (range >= lm85_range_map[15])
> >  		return 15 ;
> > -	} else {  /* find closest match */
> > -		for ( i = 14 ; i >= 0 ; --i ) {
> > -			if ( range > lm85_range_map[i] ) { /* range bracketed */
> > -				if ((lm85_range_map[i+1] - range) < 
> > -					(range - lm85_range_map[i])) {
> > -					i++;
> > -					break;
> > -				}
> > -				break;
> > -			}
> > +
> > +	/* Find the closest match */
> > +	for (i = 14; i >= 0; --i) {
> > +		if (range >= lm85_range_map[i]) {
> > +			if ((lm85_range_map[i + 1] - range) <
> > +					(range - lm85_range_map[i]))
> > +				return i + 1;
> > +			return i;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> > -	return( i & 0x0f );
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> >  #define RANGE_FROM_REG(val) (lm85_range_map[(val)&0x0f])
> >  
> 
> This works but is less efficient compared to the original code for range 
> values < 2000.

But it is slightly more efficient for all values between 2000 and
80000. The average efficiency is exactly the same as those of the
original code.

> Is there a reason not to check for < 2000 before looping?

Code size. The < 2000 case is handled just fine by the for loop, so I
don't see the point of making the code bigger.

Note that performance is hardly an issue here anyway, users aren't
going to change this parameter very often.

-- 
Jean Delvare