Le 26/11/2019 19:20, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
> 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 ?
Yes you are right, except for Voltages for which we only have the "SMI Voltage status" @1E to get a status, and as this is an SMI
status register it does not work as simple non-SMI status registers.
So the good nexs is that there's nothing to fix for temperatures and fans because the driver is only using the non-SMI status
registers for them, and they have their bits set as long as we are out of range (not cleared by read).
> 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
Good idea, I'm going to work on it and make sure there's no risk to miss a transition and then have a staled status.
>> + 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
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
