Hi Wei, Sorry for the late reply, catching up with the discussions from before my vacation... On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:18:35 +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > On 07/29/2013 11:58 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:14:56 +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > >> Yes, we had met this problems, to fix this issue, we enabled one-shot > >> mode in the bottom half handler of nct interrupts to force a > >> conversion/comparison. This effectively stops repeated nct interrupts. > >> We will do following things in the IRQ thread: > >> 1. stand by the nct1008. (set configure register bit 6) > >> 2. update the limit value if needed. > >> 3. write to one-shot resister. > >> 4. give hardware necessary time to finish conversion > >> 5. run the nct1008 (clear configure register bit 6) > > > > Doh, this is so ugly :( > > > > Why don't you configure the pin as THERM2 instead of ALERT then? I'd > > expect this to make things easier. > > If configure as THERM2, only the high temperature limits are relevant, > so when the temperature reduced, it will not trigger interrupt, and we > can't update the cooling state. Ah, indeed, I had not noticed this restriction. > Or do you mean that we can configure the pin to THERM2 in the irq_thread > to avoid the repeated interrupt ? I tried it, but no help, the nct1008 > will not run the conversion/comparison immediately, so the status > register will not be cleared. No, I didn't mean to suggest anything like that. > >> (...) > >> These trip-temps are not critical temperature, we used these temps to > >> update cooling states. For the critical-temp, we handle it like my > >> mentioned in #1. > > > > I understand. But even if these interrupts are only used for managing > > cooling states, a misbehavior could still have annoying consequences, > > such as causing the thermal shutdown to trigger when this could have > > been avoided, or throttling to stay enabled even though the system has > > cooled down enough. > > I think our driver are trying best to avoid these troubles. As I know in > our downstream codes, we didn't met these things. > I think since the lm90 support interrupt mode, then the driver should > have related interface to handle it, and it can call the callback > function to do what the platform driver want. Yes, fair enough. I do not object to it, I was only trying to understand how you were using it. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
