On 10/14/24 05:12, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 13:20:28 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Configuration register bit 5 must read 0 for all JC42.4 compliant chips.
Several capability register bits must be set for all TSE2004 compliant
chips. Use that information to strengthen the detect function.
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/jc42.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c b/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
index 1180af1b1638..a260cff750a5 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
@@ -413,7 +413,11 @@ static int jc42_detect(struct i2c_client *client, struct i2c_board_info *info)
if (cap < 0 || config < 0 || manid < 0 || devid < 0)
return -ENODEV;
- if ((cap & 0xff00) || (config & 0xf800))
+ if ((cap & 0xff00) || (config & 0xf820))
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ if ((devid & TSE2004_DEVID_MASK) == TSE2004_DEVID &&
+ (cap & 0x00e7) != 0x00e7)
return -ENODEV;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(jc42_chips); i++) {
I have a user reporting that this change is causing the jc42 driver to
no longer bind to his memory module temperature sensor devices after
updating to kernel v6.11. I asked for a register dump:
0,8 1,9 2,a 3,b 4,c 5,d 6,e 7,f
00: 7f00 0000 0000 0000 0000 6ac2 091b 3022
After swapping the bytes, I see that this is a TSE2004-compliant device
(devid = 0x2230) and the capabilities register reads 0x007f. This
doesn't pass the 0x00e7 mask test you added, as bit 7 isn't set in his
case.
The JEDEC standard indeed says that bit 7 should be set, but apparently
this isn't always the case in the real world.
Also note that I looked at the Renesas TSE2004GB2B0 datasheet and it
shows bit 2 (RANGE) as not always set. The ST STTS2004 datasheet shows
bits 0 (EVENT) and 2 (RANGE) as possibly reading 0. So I wonder how
much we can rely on these capability bits being set in the detect
function. Unfortunately I don't have any TS2004-compliant device at
hand to verify, nor do I own register dumps of such devices. Would it
be OK with you if we relax the check to at least ignore bit 7, and
possibly also bits 0 and 2?
Sigh. I guess it would have been a miracle if vendors followed the standard.
Let's ignore all three bits, with explanation. Care to send a patch, or do
you want me to do it ?
Thanks,
Guenter
