Hi Chen-Yu,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 5:12 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:21 AM Balsam CHIHI <bchihi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:33 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:48 PM Balsam CHIHI <bchihi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chen-Yu,
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the bug comes from incorrect calibration data offsets for AP
> > > > Domain because you confirm that MCU Domain probe runs without issues.
> > > > Is it possible to test something for us to confirm this theory (i
> > > > don't have an mt8192 board on hand now), when you have the time of
> > > > course?
> > > > We would like to test AP Domain's calibration data offsets with a
> > > > working one, for example :
> > > >
> > > > static const struct lvts_ctrl_data mt8192_lvts_ap_data_ctrl[] = {
> > > > {
> > > > - .cal_offset = { 0x25, 0x28 },
> > > > + .cal_offset = { 0x04, 0x04 },
> > > > .lvts_sensor = {
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_VPU0 },
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_VPU1 }
> > > > @@ -1336,7 +1336,7 @@ static const struct lvts_ctrl_data
> > > > mt8192_lvts_ap_data_ctrl[] = {
> > > > .hw_tshut_temp = LVTS_HW_SHUTDOWN_MT8192,
> > > > },
> > > > {
> > > > - .cal_offset = { 0x2e, 0x31 },
> > > > + .cal_offset = { 0x04, 0x04 },
> > > > .lvts_sensor = {
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_GPU0 },
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_GPU1 }
> > > > @@ -1346,7 +1346,7 @@ static const struct lvts_ctrl_data
> > > > mt8192_lvts_ap_data_ctrl[] = {
> > > > .hw_tshut_temp = LVTS_HW_SHUTDOWN_MT8192,
> > > > },
> > > > {
> > > > - .cal_offset = { 0x37, 0x3a },
> > > > + .cal_offset = { 0x04, 0x04 },
> > > > .lvts_sensor = {
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_INFRA },
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_CAM },
> > > > @@ -1356,7 +1356,7 @@ static const struct lvts_ctrl_data
> > > > mt8192_lvts_ap_data_ctrl[] = {
> > > > .hw_tshut_temp = LVTS_HW_SHUTDOWN_MT8192,
> > > > },
> > > > {
> > > > - .cal_offset = { 0x40, 0x43, 0x46 },
> > > > + .cal_offset = { 0x04, 0x04, 0x04 },
> > > > .lvts_sensor = {
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_MD0 },
> > > > { .dt_id = MT8192_AP_MD1 },
> > > >
> > > > This example is tested and works for mt8195,
> > > > (all sensors use the same calibration data offset for testing purposes).
> > > >
> > > > Thank you in advance for your help.
> > >
> > > The MCU ones are still tripping though. If I change all of them to 0x04,
> > > then nothing trips. There's also a bug in the interrupt handling code
> > > that needs to be dealt with.
> > >
> > > AFAICT the calibration data is stored differently. If you look at ChromeOS's
> > > downstream v5.10 driver, you'll see mt6873_efuse_to_cal_data() for MT8192,
> > > and mt8195_efuse_to_cal_data() for MT8195. The difference sums up to:
> > > MT8195 has all data sequentially stored, while MT8192 has most data stored
> > > in lower 24 bits of each 32-bit word, and the highest 8 bits are then used
> > > to pack data for the remaining sensors.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > ChenYu
> >
> > Hi Chen-Yu Tsai,
> >
> > Thank you very much for helping me testing this suggestion.
> >
> > Indeed, calibration data is stored differently in the mt8192 compared to mt8195.
> > So, the mt8192's support will be delayed for now, to allow further debugging.
> >
> > In the mean time, we will only continue to upstream the remaining
> > mt8195's source code, so it will get full LVTS support.
> > A new series will be submitted soon.
> >
> > Would you please point me out to the bug in interrupt handling code?
>
> I just sent out two patches and CC-ed you on them. They are here just in case:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20230328031037.1361048-1-wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20230328031017.1360976-1-wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
Well received. I'm testing it.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Balsam
>
> ChenYu
