On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:26:20PM -0500, Eddie James wrote: > > > On 08/14/2017 01:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Eddie James wrote: > >>From: "Edward A. James" <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> Documentation/hwmon/ibm-cffps | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 Documentation/hwmon/ibm-cffps > >> > >>diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/ibm-cffps b/Documentation/hwmon/ibm-cffps > >>new file mode 100644 > >>index 0000000..e091ff2 > >>--- /dev/null > >>+++ b/Documentation/hwmon/ibm-cffps > >>@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ > >>+Kernel driver ibm-cffps > >>+======================= > >>+ > >>+Supported chips: > >>+ * IBM Common Form Factor power supply > >>+ > >>+Author: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>+ > >>+Description > >>+----------- > >>+ > >>+This driver supports IBM Common Form Factor (CFF) power supplies. This driver > >>+is a client to the core PMBus driver. > >>+ > >>+Usage Notes > >>+----------- > >>+ > >>+This driver does not auto-detect devices. You will have to instantiate the > >>+devices explicitly. Please see Documentation/i2c/instantiating-devices for > >>+details. > >>+ > >>+Sysfs entries > >>+------------- > >>+ > >>+The following attributes are supported: > >>+ > >>+curr1_alarm Output current over-current fault. > >>+curr1_input Measured output current in mA. > >>+curr1_label "iout1" > >>+ > >>+fan1_alarm Fan 1 warning. > >>+fan1_fault Fan 1 fault. > >>+fan1_input Fan 1 speed in RPM. > >>+fan2_alarm Fan 2 warning. > >>+fan2_fault Fan 2 fault. > >>+fan2_input Fan 2 speed in RPM. > >>+ > >>+in1_alarm Input voltage under-voltage fault. > >Just noticed. Are you sure you mean 'fault' here and below ? > >'alarm' attributes normally report an over- or under- condition, > >but not a fault. Faults should be reported with 'fault' attributes. > >In PMBus lingo (which doesn't distinguish a real 'fault' from > >a critical over- or under- condition), the "FAULT" condition > >usually maps with the 'crit_alarm' or 'lcrit_alarm' attributes. > >Also, under-voltages would normally be reported as min_alarm > >or clrit_alarm, not in_alarm. > > Thanks, I better change this doc to "alarm." The spec reports all these as > "faults" but many of them are merely over-temp or over-voltage, etc, and > should be "alarm" to be consistent with PMBus. > > The problem with this power supply is that it doesn't report any "limits." > So unless I set up my read_byte function to return some limits, we can't get > any lower or upper limits and therefore won't get the crit_alarm, > lcrit_alarm, etc. Do you think I should "fake" the limits in the driver? > Good question. Are the limits documented ? If yes, that would make sense. I am quite sure that limits are word registers, though. Guenter > > > >>+in1_input Measured input voltage in mV. > >>+in1_label "vin" > >>+in2_alarm Output voltage over-voltage fault. > >>+in2_input Measured output voltage in mV. > >>+in2_label "vout1" > >>+ > >>+power1_alarm Input fault. > >Another example; this maps to PMBUS_PIN_OP_WARN_LIMIT which is an > >input power alarm, not an indication of a fault condition. > > Hm, with my latest changes to look at the higher byte of STATUS_WORD, it > looks like we now have the same name for both the pin generic alarm > attribute and the pin_limit_attr... So in this device's case, it would map > to PB_STATUS_INPUT bit of STATUS_WORD. Didn't think about that... any > suggestions? Can't really change the name of the limit one without breaking > people's code... > > > > >>+power1_input Measured input power in uW. > >>+power1_label "pin" > >>+ > >>+temp1_alarm PSU inlet ambient temperature over-temperature fault. > >>+temp1_input Measured PSU inlet ambient temp in millidegrees C. > >>+temp2_alarm Secondary rectifier temp over-temperature fault. > >Interestingly, PMBus does not distinguish between a critical temperature > >alarm and an actual "fault". Makes me wonder if the IBM PS reports > >CFFPS_MFR_THERMAL_FAULT if there is an actual fault (chip or sensor failure), > >or if it has the same meaning as PB_TEMP_OT_FAULT, ie an excessively high > >temperature. > > Will change these to "alarm" in the doc too. > > > > >If it is a real fault (a detected sensor failure), we should possibly > >consider adding a respective "virtual" temperature status flag. The same > >is true for other status bits reported in the manufacturer status > >register if any of those reflect a "real" fault, ie a chip failure. > > Yea, that would probably be helpful. The CFFPS_MFR_THERMAL_FAULT bit is a > fault (so the spec says), but I'm not sure what is triggering it. > > Thanks, > Eddie > > > > >>+temp2_input Measured secondary rectifier temp in millidegrees C. > >>+temp3_alarm ORing FET temperature over-temperature fault. > >>+temp3_input Measured ORing FET temperature in millidegrees C. > >>-- > >>1.8.3.1 > >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
