Message-ID: <b716a9ec-93ba-7c42-c8d3-1d6db950ad7b@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 Feb 2023 20:48:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Content-Language: de-DE, en-US, en-US-large
To:     Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@gmail.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Jack Doan <me@jackdoan.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230211165923.17807-1-leonard.anderweit@gmail.com>
 <20230211165923.17807-4-leonard.anderweit@gmail.com>
 <0664b935-d201-419a-3f1d-3df4226a8db1@roeck-us.net>
 <00875064-0407-b114-56c9-87aecb0d3ee4@gmail.com>
From:   Leonard Anderweit <leonard.anderweit@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add temperature offset
 control for Aquaero
In-Reply-To: <00875064-0407-b114-56c9-87aecb0d3ee4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Am 11.02.23 um 19:54 schrieb Aleksa Savic:
> On 2023-02-11 19:08:27 GMT+01:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>> aquaero is already supported, and the checksum is so far generated
>> and sent. Is it ignored ? Also, is it guaranteed that _all_ aquero devices
>> don't need it ?
> 
> Reading its sensors is currently supported, not writing to it (before these
> patches).
> 
> The checksum is ignored and not needed for either aquaero 5 (which Leonard has)
> nor 6 (which I have).
> 
>>
>> If it is not needed and ignored, does it really add value to selectively drop it ?
> 
> I think we can indeed remove that check.

I don't think that check can be removed as the checksum is not appended 
to the control report but is in the last two bytes. So using the 
checksum on Aquaero will overwrite the data at that location. It is 
currently unknown what these two bytes do so I do not want to overwrite 
them.

> 
> Thanks,
> Aleksa
> 
>>
>> Either case, this change is not mentioned in the commit log, and it
>> violates the "one logical change per patch" rule. Please split it into
>> a separate patch and explain why the change is needed.
>>
>> Another change to separate is the introduction of ctrl_report_id
>> and the secondary_ctrl_report variables, which is also done silently
>> and not explained. That should also be a separate patch to simplify
>> review.

I will separate the changes into more commits for the next version.

Regards,
Leonard

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Guenter
>