Hi, Hugo.
Sadly, yes, I even tried a ridiculous msleep(1000) but I still get
[ 3.671189] max310x 11-006c: clock is not stable yet
[ 4.791122] max310x 11-0061: clock is not stable yet
[ 5.911719] max310x 11-0062: clock is not stable yet
[ 90.951252] max310x 11-0064: clock is not stable yet
[ 178.631326] max310x 11-0065: clock is not stable yet
Thanks,
Usha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 11:53 AM
> To: Srinivasan, Usha <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: max14830 irq
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:55:57 +0000
> "Srinivasan, Usha" <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Hugo.
> > Thank you. Yes, I have clock source set to xtal and thanks for the tip on the
> delay you shared. I think my issue may be due to how I defined my interrupts in
> the dts file for the arm. Thanks again for your feedback!
> > Usha
>
> Hi Usha,
> if you have time, I would appreciate if you could confirm if the "stable clock"
> warning disapears when increasing the delay to 100ms?
>
> Thank you,
> Hugo.
>
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 5:40 PM
> > > To: Srinivasan, Usha <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: max14830 irq
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:25:03 +0000
> > > "Srinivasan, Usha" <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Hugo.
> > > > Thanks so much for your response.
> > > >
> > > > I was building with 6.1 had one patch but not the other. I
> > > > brought over the
> > > 2nd patch as well but made no difference.
> > > >
> > > > I switched from 6.1 to 6.6 which has both patches and still the same issue.
> > > >
> > > > What do you suggest next?
> > > > Usha
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > let's hope that someone with more experience with this IC can help you.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, see my comments below...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 5:30 PM
> > > > > To: Srinivasan, Usha <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: max14830 irq
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 19:08:08 +0000 "Srinivasan, Usha"
> > > > > <usha.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I am trying to get max14830 working on our platform and I'm
> > > > > > seeing a stack
> > > > > trace for each of the UARTs in my device tree. I'm not sure
> > > > > what the fix is. I'm running 6.1.15-580639a (OpenBMC 2.14.0) on
> > > > > ASPEED ast2600. Any help appreciated.
> > > > > > [ 2.608620] max310x 11-006c: clock is not stable yet
> > >
> > > I assume that your clock source is defined as a crystal (xtal) in
> > > your device tree. Is it really the case (xtal vs oscillator)?
> > >
> > > If yes, do you see this warning message every time? I noticed that
> > > Boundary devices have a patch in their private repo where they
> > > increased the delay to detect a stable crystal from 10ms to 100ms (but they
> do not explain why).
> > >
> > > Can you try that:
> > >
> > > @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ static u32 max310x_set_ref_clk(struct device
> > > *dev, struct max310x_port *s, if (xtal) {
> > > unsigned int val;
> > >
> > > - msleep(10);
> > > + msleep(100);
> > > regmap_read(s->regmap, MAX310X_STS_IRQSTS_REG,
> > > &val);
> > >
> > > Hugo Villeneuve
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > [ 2.614933] 11-006c: ttyMAX0 at I/O 0x0 (irq = 57, base_baud =
> > > 3750000) is a
> > > > > MAX14830
> > > > > > [ 2.625532] 11-006c: ttyMAX1 at I/O 0x1 (irq = 57, base_baud =
> > > 3750000) is a
> > > > > MAX14830
> > > > > > [ 2.636061] 11-006c: ttyMAX2 at I/O 0x2 (irq = 57, base_baud =
> > > 3750000) is a
> > > > > MAX14830
> > > > > > [ 2.646513] 11-006c: ttyMAX3 at I/O 0x3 (irq = 57, base_baud =
> > > 3750000) is a
> > > > > MAX14830
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > it seems you have I2C communication with your device and the ID
> > > > > register was read correctly in the probe() function. If it was
> > > > > not the case, you would have an error message about that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And,
> > > > > > [ 88.430219] irq 57: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll"
> > > option)
> > > > >
> > > > > This is probalbly happening because max310x_ist() was called,
> > > > > but when it exited the interrupt line was still active, so that
> > > > > it was not
> > > handled properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you make sure you have the following two patches in your
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > version:
> > > > >
> > > > > 984a4afdc87a ("regmap: prevent noinc writes from clobbering
> > > > > cache") c94e5baa989f ("serial: max310x: fix IO data corruption
> > > > > in batched
> > > > > operations")
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not have hardware to test it, and this is a wild guess, but
> > > > > they may be relevant to your problem because they enable the
> > > > > FIFOs to be read/written properly. If Rx FIFO for example cannot
> > > > > be read, the source of the interrupt cannot be cleared, and
> > > > > could potentially
> > > explain your problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hugo Villeneuve
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > [ 88.437720] CPU: 0 PID: 65 Comm: irq/57-11-006c Not tainted 6.1.15-
> > > > > 580639a #1
> > > > > > [ 88.445687] Hardware name: Generic DT based system
> > > > > > [ 88.451046] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
> > > > > > [ 88.456906] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x40/0x4c
> > > > > > [ 88.462556] dump_stack_lvl from __report_bad_irq+0x44/0xc8
> > > > > > [ 88.468784] __report_bad_irq from note_interrupt+0x2c8/0x314
> > > > > > [ 88.475208] note_interrupt from handle_irq_event+0x90/0x94
> > > > > > [ 88.481436] handle_irq_event from handle_level_irq+0xbc/0x1b4
> > > > > > [ 88.487952] handle_level_irq from
> > > generic_handle_domain_irq+0x30/0x40
> > > > > > [ 88.495253] generic_handle_domain_irq from
> > > > > aspeed_gpio_irq_handler+0xac/0x158
> > > > > > [ 88.503326] aspeed_gpio_irq_handler from
> > > > > generic_handle_domain_irq+0x30/0x40
> > > > > > [ 88.511305] generic_handle_domain_irq from
> > > gic_handle_irq+0x6c/0x80
> > > > > > [ 88.518411] gic_handle_irq from
> generic_handle_arch_irq+0x34/0x44
> > > > > > [ 88.525316] generic_handle_arch_irq from
> call_with_stack+0x18/0x20
> > > > > > [ 88.532328] call_with_stack from __irq_svc+0x98/0xb0
> > > > > > [ 88.537973] Exception stack(0xbf925eb0 to 0xbf925ef8)
> > > > > > [ 88.543614] 5ea0: 45854088 00000003 00000001
> > > > > 00000000
> > > > > > [ 88.552742] 5ec0: 00000000 4184ee80 45854088 00000000
> 45854000
> > > > > 41a64140 00000000 00000000
> > > > > > [ 88.561870] 5ee0: 00000000 bf925f00 4016bb7c 4016bac0 600f0013
> > > ffffffff
> > > > > > [ 88.569252] __irq_svc from __wake_up_common_lock+0x1c/0xb8
> > > > > > [ 88.575483] __wake_up_common_lock from __wake_up+0x20/0x28
> > > > > > [ 88.581714] __wake_up from irq_thread+0x118/0x1ec
> > > > > > [ 88.587070] irq_thread from kthread+0xd8/0xf4
> > > > > > [ 88.592040] kthread from ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
> > > > > > [ 88.597288] Exception stack(0xbf925fb0 to 0xbf925ff8)
> > > > > > [ 88.602923] 5fa0: 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > > > > 00000000
> > > > > > [ 88.612053] 5fc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > > > > 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > > > > > [ 88.621179] 5fe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> 00000013
> > > > > 00000000
> > > > > > [ 88.628559] handlers:
> > > > > > [ 88.631088] [<4f379e2c>] irq_default_primary_handler threaded
> > > > > [<26199d83>] max310x_ist
> > > > > > [ 88.639952] Disabling IRQ #57
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________
> > > > > > Usha Srinivasan
> > > > External recipient
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > External recipient
> >
>
>
> --
> Hugo Villeneuve
External recipient
