Hi Herbert,
Wrong mailing list, redirecting to the correct one.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:52:35 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> this patch adds proper support for LM96000 (at least
> the version I could test with) and provides some
> 'generic' control of the tachometer monitor mode for
> lm85/lm96000 pwm control.
Ideally this would be 2 separate patches.
>
> please consider for (mainline) inclusion!
>
> TIA,
> Herbert
>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Poetzl <herbert at 13thfloor.at>
>
> diff -NurpP --minimal linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali/Documentation/hwmon/lm85 linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali-lm96k-v0.1/Documentation/hwmon/lm85
> --- linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali/Documentation/hwmon/lm85 2008-10-01 19:39:51.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali-lm96k-v0.1/Documentation/hwmon/lm85 2008-10-01 20:39:01.000000000 +0200
> @@ -189,6 +189,22 @@ Configuration choices:
> -1 PWM always 100% (full on)
> -2 Manual control (write to 'pwm#' to set)
>
> +* PWM Tachometer Monitor Mode
You could add that this applies to the LM85 and LM96000 only.
> +
> +* pwm#_tmm - controls the monitor mode for pwm#
I'm not convinced that this is the correct name. These registers mainly
affect the fan speed measurement, not control (thus the name:
Tachometer Monitor Mode), even though mode 2 will have an effect on the
PWM duty cycle as well. So, shouldn't these files be rather named
fan#_tmm?
> +
> +Configuration choices:
> +
> + Value Meaning <min
> + ------ ---------------------------------------- ------
> + 0 Traditional tach input monitor any
> + 1 Traditional tach input monitor FFFFh
> + 2 Most accurate readings FFFFh
> + 3 Least effect on programmed PWM of Fan FFFFh
> +
> +In the default setting, you will get false readings when under
> +minimum detctable RPM, in all other modes FFFFh.
Mode 0 seems a bit silly to me. Shouldn't we automatically switch the
chip to mode 1 when we find it in mode 0 (and high-frequency PWM isn't
in use)?
> +
> The National LM85's have two vendor specific configuration
> features. Tach. mode and Spinup Control. For more details on these,
> see the LM85 datasheet or Application Note AN-1260. These features
Later on, the document says that the tachometer mode isn't supported by
the driver. You should change this, as it is now.
> diff -NurpP --minimal linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali-lm96k-v0.1/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c
> --- linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c 2008-10-01 19:39:51.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc8-khali-lm96k-v0.1/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c 2008-10-01 20:29:25.000000000 +0200
> @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@
> static const unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e, I2C_CLIENT_END };
>
> /* Insmod parameters */
> -I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_6(lm85b, lm85c, adm1027, adt7463, emc6d100, emc6d102);
> +I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_7(lm85b, lm85c, lm96000, adm1027, adt7463, emc6d100,
> + emc6d102);
>
> /* The LM85 registers */
>
> @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_6(lm85b, lm85c, adm102
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_GENERIC 0x60
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_LM85C 0x60
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_LM85B 0x62
> +#define LM85_VERSTEP_LM96000 0x69
What about 0x68? We've seen LM96000 chips with this device ID already,
so we should support it.
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_ADM1027 0x60
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7463 0x62
> #define LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7463C 0x6A
> @@ -91,6 +93,8 @@ I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_6(lm85b, lm85c, adm102
> #define LM85_REG_AFAN_HYST1 0x6d
> #define LM85_REG_AFAN_HYST2 0x6e
>
> +#define LM85_REG_TACHO_MON_MODE 0x74
> +
> #define ADM1027_REG_EXTEND_ADC1 0x76
> #define ADM1027_REG_EXTEND_ADC2 0x77
>
> @@ -185,11 +189,16 @@ static int RANGE_TO_REG(int range)
> #define RANGE_FROM_REG(val) lm85_range_map[(val) & 0x0f]
>
> /* These are the PWM frequency encodings */
> -static const int lm85_freq_map[8] = { /* 1 Hz */
> - 10, 15, 23, 30, 38, 47, 62, 94
Note: this 62 should actually be 61, as you did for the LM96000. I've
fixed it in my code.
> +static const int lm85_freq_map[] = { /* 1 Hz */
> + 10, 15, 23, 30, 38, 47, 62, 94, 0
> };
> -static const int adm1027_freq_map[8] = { /* 1 Hz */
> - 11, 15, 22, 29, 35, 44, 59, 88
> +static const int lm96000_freq_map[] = { /* 1 Hz */
> + 10, 15, 23, 30, 38, 47, 61, 94,
> + 22500, 24000, 25700, 25700,
> + 27700, 27700, 30000, 30000, 0
> +};
> +static const int adm1027_freq_map[] = { /* 1 Hz */
> + 11, 15, 22, 29, 35, 44, 59, 88, 0
> };
>
> static int FREQ_TO_REG(const int *map, int freq)
> @@ -197,7 +206,7 @@ static int FREQ_TO_REG(const int *map, i
> int i;
>
> /* Find the closest match */
> - for (i = 0; i < 7; ++i)
> + for (i = 0; map[i + 1]; i++)
> if (freq <= (map[i] + map[i + 1]) / 2)
> break;
> return i;
> @@ -205,7 +214,13 @@ static int FREQ_TO_REG(const int *map, i
>
> static int FREQ_FROM_REG(const int *map, u8 reg)
> {
> - return map[reg & 0x07];
Note that the masking wasn't needed, as it already happens in
lm85_update_device().
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; map[i]; i++)
> + if (reg == i)
> + break;
> +
> + return map[i];
> }
You are replacing an algorithm in constant time (O(1)) by a linear one
(O(N)). This is no good, and can easily be avoided. You simply need to
ensure that the value of "reg" is suitable for the map's size, this can
be done by a simple masking in lm85_update_device().
>
> /* Since we can't use strings, I'm abusing these numbers
> @@ -304,6 +319,7 @@ struct lm85_data {
> u8 temp_ext[3]; /* Decoded values */
> u8 in_ext[8]; /* Decoded values */
> u8 vid; /* Register value */
> + u8 tmm; /* Register value */
> u8 vrm; /* VRM version */
> u32 alarms; /* Register encoding, combined */
> struct lm85_autofan autofan[3];
> @@ -327,6 +343,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id lm85_i
> { "lm85", any_chip },
> { "lm85b", lm85b },
> { "lm85c", lm85c },
> + { "lm96000", lm96000 },
> { "emc6d100", emc6d100 },
> { "emc6d101", emc6d100 },
> { "emc6d102", emc6d102 },
> @@ -567,7 +584,31 @@ static ssize_t set_pwm_freq(struct devic
> data->pwm_freq[nr] = FREQ_TO_REG(data->freq_map, val);
> lm85_write_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_RANGE(nr),
> (data->zone[nr].range << 4)
> - | data->pwm_freq[nr]);
> + | (data->pwm_freq[nr] & 0x0f));
Useless masking.
> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> + return count;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t show_pwm_tmm(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + int nr = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr)->index;
> + struct lm85_data *data = lm85_update_device(dev);
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", (data->tmm >> (2*nr)) & 3);
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t set_pwm_tmm(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + int nr = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr)->index;
> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> + struct lm85_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> + long val = simple_strtol(buf, NULL, 10);
> + int mask = 3 << (2*nr);
You should reject invalid values at this point.
BTW, the datasheet says that only mode 0 is valid for high frequency
PWM modes. So I guess that the driver should enforce that, by forcing
mode 0 and preventing non-zero values from being written when a high
frequency is selected?
> +
> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> + data->tmm = (data->tmm & ~mask) | ((val & 3) << (2*nr));
> + lm85_write_value(client, LM85_REG_TACHO_MON_MODE, data->tmm);
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> return count;
> }
> @@ -578,7 +619,9 @@ static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm##offset, S
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm##offset##_enable, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, \
> show_pwm_enable, set_pwm_enable, offset - 1); \
> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm##offset##_freq, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, \
> - show_pwm_freq, set_pwm_freq, offset - 1)
> + show_pwm_freq, set_pwm_freq, offset - 1); \
> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm##offset##_tmm, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, \
> + show_pwm_tmm, set_pwm_tmm, offset - 1)
>
>
> show_pwm_reg(1);
> @@ -886,7 +929,7 @@ static ssize_t set_temp_auto_temp_min(st
> TEMP_FROM_REG(data->zone[nr].limit));
> lm85_write_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_RANGE(nr),
> ((data->zone[nr].range & 0x0f) << 4)
> - | (data->pwm_freq[nr] & 0x07));
> + | (data->pwm_freq[nr] & 0x0f));
You might as well drop the masking altogether, it's useless.
>
> /* Update temp_auto_hyst and temp_auto_off */
> data->zone[nr].hyst = HYST_TO_REG(TEMP_FROM_REG(
> @@ -929,7 +972,7 @@ static ssize_t set_temp_auto_temp_max(st
> val - min);
> lm85_write_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_RANGE(nr),
> ((data->zone[nr].range & 0x0f) << 4)
> - | (data->pwm_freq[nr] & 0x07));
> + | (data->pwm_freq[nr] & 0x0f));
Same here.
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> return count;
> }
> @@ -999,6 +1042,9 @@ static struct attribute *lm85_attributes
> &sensor_dev_attr_pwm1_freq.dev_attr.attr,
> &sensor_dev_attr_pwm2_freq.dev_attr.attr,
> &sensor_dev_attr_pwm3_freq.dev_attr.attr,
> + &sensor_dev_attr_pwm1_tmm.dev_attr.attr,
> + &sensor_dev_attr_pwm2_tmm.dev_attr.attr,
> + &sensor_dev_attr_pwm3_tmm.dev_attr.attr,
>
> &sensor_dev_attr_in0_input.dev_attr.attr,
> &sensor_dev_attr_in1_input.dev_attr.attr,
> @@ -1145,6 +1191,9 @@ static int lm85_detect(struct i2c_client
> case LM85_VERSTEP_LM85B:
> kind = lm85b;
> break;
> + case LM85_VERSTEP_LM96000:
> + kind = lm96000;
> + break;
> }
> } else if (company == LM85_COMPANY_ANALOG_DEV) {
> switch (verstep) {
> @@ -1193,6 +1242,9 @@ static int lm85_detect(struct i2c_client
> case lm85c:
> type_name = "lm85c";
> break;
> + case lm96000:
> + type_name = "lm96000";
> + break;
> case adm1027:
> type_name = "adm1027";
> break;
> @@ -1237,6 +1289,9 @@ static int lm85_probe(struct i2c_client
> case emc6d102:
> data->freq_map = adm1027_freq_map;
> break;
> + case lm96000:
> + data->freq_map = lm96000_freq_map;
> + break;
> default:
> data->freq_map = lm85_freq_map;
> }
> @@ -1401,6 +1456,9 @@ static struct lm85_data *lm85_update_dev
> lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_PWM(i));
> }
>
> + /* maybe restrict to LM85/LM96000? */
> + data->tmm = lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_TACHO_MON_MODE);
Yes, please restrict to the chips which have this register. SMBus
access isn't cheap.
> +
> data->alarms = lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_ALARM1);
>
> if (data->type == emc6d100) {
> @@ -1480,7 +1538,7 @@ static struct lm85_data *lm85_update_dev
> data->autofan[i].config =
> lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_CONFIG(i));
> val = lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_RANGE(i));
> - data->pwm_freq[i] = val & 0x07;
> + data->pwm_freq[i] = val & 0x0f;
You could instead do:
data->pwm_freq[i] = val & (data->type == lm96000 ? 0x0f : 0x07);
That way, you guarantee that the value is within the correct bounds for
the pwm frequency map, so you can keep the original (fast) algorithm in
FREQ_FROM_REG (just drop the useless masking there.)
> data->zone[i].range = val >> 4;
> data->autofan[i].min_pwm =
> lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_MINPWM(i));
--
Jean Delvare
