On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 04:47:47PM +0000, Gilles Buloz wrote:
> OK, so to have "ALARM" reported as long as we are outside limits, I did not find another method than checking against limits by
> software, but still clear the related status register to have a working interrupt.
> The patch below is working for voltages.
> If you're OK, I can extend it to the temperatures and fans
>
> --- nct7802.c.orig 2019-11-26 10:37:08.753693088 +0100
> +++ nct7802.c 2019-11-26 17:27:56.000000000 +0100
> @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@
> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE[5] = { 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0c, 0x0d, 0x0e };
>
> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_LSB[2][5] = {
> - { 0x40, 0x00, 0x42, 0x44, 0x46 },
> - { 0x3f, 0x00, 0x41, 0x43, 0x45 },
> + { 0x46, 0x00, 0x40, 0x42, 0x44 },
> + { 0x45, 0x00, 0x3f, 0x41, 0x43 },
> };
>
> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_MSB[5] = { 0x48, 0x00, 0x47, 0x47, 0x48 };
> @@ -377,6 +377,32 @@
> return err ? : count;
> }
>
> +static ssize_t show_in_alarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct sensor_device_attribute_2 *sattr = to_sensor_dev_attr_2(attr);
> + struct nct7802_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int volt, min, max, ret;
> + unsigned int val;
> +
> + volt = nct7802_read_voltage(data, sattr->nr, 0);
> + if (volt < 0)
> + return volt;
> + min = nct7802_read_voltage(data, sattr->nr, 1);
> + if (min < 0)
> + return min;
> + max = nct7802_read_voltage(data, sattr->nr, 2);
> + if (max < 0)
> + return max;
> +
> + /* also clear related status register to have functional interrupt */
> + ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, sattr->index, &val);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
According to the datasheet, the status register bits should be set while
voltages are out of range. Are you sure that this is not the case ?
The next question is how the status registers behave. If the bits are set
whenever voltages cross a limit, we could use that knowledge and compare
voltages against limits only after a status register bit was set.
Something like
if (status register bit is set) {
alarm = (voltage is out of range);
cache alarm;
}
print alarm;
Thanks,
Guenter
> + return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", (volt < min) || (volt > max));
> +}
> +
> static ssize_t show_temp(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> @@ -714,7 +740,7 @@
> 0, 1);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in0_max, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_in, store_in,
> 0, 2);
> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in0_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 0x1e, 3);
> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in0_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_in_alarm, NULL, 0, 0x1e);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in0_beep, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_beep, store_beep,
> 0x5a, 3);
>
> @@ -725,7 +751,7 @@
> 2, 1);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in2_max, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_in, store_in,
> 2, 2);
> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in2_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 0x1e, 0);
> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in2_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_in_alarm, NULL, 2, 0x1e);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in2_beep, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_beep, store_beep,
> 0x5a, 0);
>
> @@ -734,7 +760,7 @@
> 3, 1);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in3_max, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_in, store_in,
> 3, 2);
> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in3_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 0x1e, 1);
> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in3_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_in_alarm, NULL, 3, 0x1e);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in3_beep, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_beep, store_beep,
> 0x5a, 1);
>
> @@ -743,7 +769,7 @@
> 4, 1);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in4_max, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_in, store_in,
> 4, 2);
> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in4_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 0x1e, 2);
> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in4_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_in_alarm, NULL, 4, 0x1e);
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(in4_beep, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, show_beep, store_beep,
> 0x5a, 2);
>
>
> Le 26/11/2019 13:22, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
> > On 11/26/19 2:03 AM, Gilles Buloz wrote:
> >> I have a functional patch (see below), but before going further (split and cleanup), I would like to have your opinion on how the
> >> NCT7802Y handles the thresholds status.
> >> Except for temperatures and in "comparator interrupt mode", the status bits are NOT set after each ADC conversion, but only once
> >> when crossing a threshold. So an alarm for a threshold is reported only to the first process reading the status and not to the
> >> others.
> >> For instance if you run "sensors" you only get "ALARM" once the nothing until the threshold is crossed again in the other direction.
> >> Maybe the expected behaviour would be to display "ALARM" as long as we are outside the thresholds, not only once.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that is the expected behavior.
> >
> > Guenter
> >
> >> --- nct7802.c.orig 2019-11-25 22:17:04.845718422 +0100
> >> +++ nct7802.c 2019-11-25 23:22:00.905387154 +0100
> >> @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@
> >> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE[5] = { 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0c, 0x0d, 0x0e };
> >>
> >> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_LSB[2][5] = {
> >> - { 0x40, 0x00, 0x42, 0x44, 0x46 },
> >> - { 0x3f, 0x00, 0x41, 0x43, 0x45 },
> >> + { 0x46, 0x00, 0x40, 0x42, 0x44 },
> >> + { 0x45, 0x00, 0x3f, 0x41, 0x43 },
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_MSB[5] = { 0x48, 0x00, 0x47, 0x47, 0x48 };
> >> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@
> >> #define REG_CHIP_ID 0xfe
> >> #define REG_VERSION_ID 0xff
> >>
> >> +#define REG_CACHE_START 0x17
> >> +#define REG_CACHE_END 0x20
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * Data structures and manipulation thereof
> >> */
> >> @@ -67,6 +70,7 @@
> >> struct nct7802_data {
> >> struct regmap *regmap;
> >> struct mutex access_lock; /* for multi-byte read and write operations */
> >> + u8 reg_cache[REG_CACHE_END - REG_CACHE_START + 1];
> >> };
> >>
> >> static ssize_t show_temp_type(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >> @@ -467,6 +471,15 @@ static ssize_t show_alarm(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * For registers cleared on read, use a cache to keep all bits
> >> + * that are set until they are returned to the caller
> >> + */
> >> + if ((sattr->nr >= REG_CACHE_START) && (sattr->nr <= REG_CACHE_END)) {
> >> + val |= data->reg_cache[sattr->nr - REG_CACHE_START];
> >> + data->reg_cache[sattr->nr - REG_CACHE_START] = val & ~(1 << bit);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", !!(val & (1 << bit)));
> >> }
> >>
> >> Le 25/11/2019 19:06, Gilles BULOZ a écrit :
> >>> Le 25/11/2019 18:35, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:44:44PM +0000, Gilles Buloz wrote:
> >>>>> Le 25/11/2019 15:31, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
> >>>>>> On 11/25/19 5:13 AM, Gilles Buloz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Guenter,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> According to the NCT7802Y datasheet, the REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_LSB definition is wrong and leads to wrong threshold registers
> >>>>>>> used. It
> >>>>>>> should be :
> >>>>>>> static const u8 REG_VOLTAGE_LIMIT_LSB[2][5] = {
> >>>>>>> { 0x46, 0x00, 0x40, 0x42, 0x44 },
> >>>>>>> { 0x45, 0x00, 0x3f, 0x41, 0x43 },
> >>>>>>> };
> >>>>>>> With this definition, the right bit is set in "Voltage SMI Status Register @0x1e" for each threshold reached (using i2cget to
> >>>>>>> check)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good catch. Care to send a patch ?
> >>>>> As a fix for this is only useful with a fix for the problem below, maybe a single patch for both would be better.
> >>>> Not really. Those are two separate issues. The reported and selected
> >>>> limits are wrong, period. This will require two patches.
> >>> OK
> >>>>>>> But I'm unable to get any "ALARM" reported by the command "sensors" for VSEN1/2/3 = in2,in3,in4 because status for in0 is read
> >>>>>>> before (unless I set "ignore in0" in sensors file). The problem is that status bits in "Voltage SMI Status Register @0x1e" are
> >>>>>>> cleared when reading, and a read is done for each inX processed, so only the first inX has a chance to get its alarm bit set.
> >>>>>>> For this problem I don't see how to fix this easily; just to let you know ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> One possible fix would be to cache each alarm register and to clear the cache
> >>>>>> either after reading it (bitwise) or after a timeout. The latter is probably
> >>>>>> better to avoid stale information.
> >>>>> As we have status registers cleared at byte level and we want them to be cleared at bit level when each bit is read, I think a
> >>>>> cache
> >>>>> would be better. I suggest this :
> >>>>> - have a cached value for each status register, by default at 0x00
> >>>>> - when reading a register to get a bit, "OR" its byte value with its cached value, then use its cached value for processing.
> >>>>> - then clear the bit that has been processed from the cached value.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Both methods I suggested would have to involve a cache. The question is
> >>>> when to clear the cache - either clear a bit after reporting it, or
> >>>> clear it after a timeout.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think a timeout would not be obvious to set : at least the time for sensors to read all info (including when terminal is a
> >>>>> serial
> >>>>> line and output is slower) and to deal with possible latencies, but not too long...
> >>>> The timeout would be determined by the chip's conversion rate (register 0x26),
> >>> As I understand, the status must be kept in cache between the first read of status register @1E for in0 (clearing all status
> >>> bits), and the last read for in4. This duration depends on the "sensors" execution time and I'can see any link with the conversion
> >>> rate here.
> >>>> or, for simplicity, just be set to one second. I don't immediately see why
> >>>> that would be difficult to implement. Not that it matters much, really;
> >>>> I would accept patches with and without timeout.
> >>>>
> >>>> Guenter
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
