Hello.

I'm sending a new version of my patch on max31790. This new version
fixes the cache issue and actually makes it work by setting
.cache_type. You were right about the "yes/no" ranges, so I flipped
those.

By the way, it seems that the reason your reply got lost is because of
weird addresses in the "Cc:" email field, they end with "cesnet.cz",
so it could be that I'm sending email incorrectly. Let me know if I'm
doing something wrong.

Thanks,
Václav

čt 22. 4. 2021 v 3:31 odesílatel Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] napsal:

On 4/12/21 7:59 PM, Václav Kubernát wrote:

quoted

Converting the driver to use regmap makes it more generic. It also makes
it a lot easier to debug through debugfs.

Signed-off-by: Václav Kubernát <redacted>
---
 drivers/hwmon/Kconfig    |   1 +
 drivers/hwmon/max31790.c | 254 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 2 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 122 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
index 1ecf697d8d99..9f11d036c316 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig

@@ -1095,6 +1095,7 @@ config SENSORS_MAX6697
 config SENSORS_MAX31790
      tristate "Maxim MAX31790 sensor chip"
      depends on I2C
+     select REGMAP_I2C
      help
        If you say yes here you get support for 6-Channel PWM-Output
        Fan RPM Controller.

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/max31790.c b/drivers/hwmon/max31790.c
index 2c6b333a28e9..e3765ce4444a 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/max31790.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/max31790.c

@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/jiffies.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/regmap.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>

 /* MAX31790 registers */

@@ -46,92 +47,53 @@

 #define NR_CHANNEL                   6

+#define MAX31790_REG_USER_BYTE_67    0x67
+
+#define BULK_TO_U16(msb, lsb)                (((msb) << 8) + (lsb))
+#define U16_MSB(num)                 (((num) & 0xFF00) >> 8)
+#define U16_LSB(num)                 ((num) & 0x00FF)
+
+static const struct regmap_range max31790_ro_range = {
+     .range_min = MAX31790_REG_TACH_COUNT(0),
+     .range_max = MAX31790_REG_PWMOUT(0) - 1,
+};
+
+static const struct regmap_access_table max31790_wr_table = {
+     .no_ranges = &max31790_ro_range,
+     .n_no_ranges = 1,
+};
+
+static const struct regmap_range max31790_volatile_ranges[] = {
+     regmap_reg_range(MAX31790_REG_TACH_COUNT(0), MAX31790_REG_TACH_COUNT(12)),
+     regmap_reg_range(MAX31790_REG_FAN_FAULT_STATUS2, MAX31790_REG_FAN_FAULT_STATUS1),
+};
+
+static const struct regmap_access_table max31790_volatile_table = {
+     .no_ranges = max31790_volatile_ranges,
+     .n_no_ranges = 2,
+     .n_yes_ranges = 0
+};

Looks like my reply to this got lost. Other regmap code suggests that
volatile register ranges are identified with yes_ranges, not with no_ranges.
"no" seems to mean "not volatile". Please verify and confirm if the
above code does what you want it to do.

Thanks,
Guenter