> Probably depends on the device implementation. I've got multiple other
> I2C/SMBUS devices and the LM81 seems to be the one that objects.
For the recored, there was just a similar case with a DA9063, but that
one luckily had a bit to switch from SMBus to I2C mode, i.e. no timeout
handling:
> The polling code is from pre-git times. Like 2005 and earlier.
> I'd say it is about time to get rid of it. Any out-of-tree users
> had more than 15 years to upstream their code, after all.
Parts of the polling mode might be interesting for the atomic_xfer mode
maybe? Which is not implemented
On 3/17/21 8:46 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is
On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
by the host.
From: Chris Packham
> Sent: 14 March 2021 21:26
>
> On 12/03/21 10:25 pm, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Linuxppc-dev Guenter Roeck
> >> Sent: 11 March 2021 21:35
> >>
> >> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Bummer. What is really weird
On 12/03/21 10:25 pm, David Laight wrote:
> From: Linuxppc-dev Guenter Roeck
>> Sent: 11 March 2021 21:35
>>
>> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> CPU load. Normally
From: Linuxppc-dev Guenter Roeck
> Sent: 11 March 2021 21:35
>
> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> >
> > On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> >>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the
On 12/03/21 1:07 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/11/21 3:47 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
On 3/11/21 3:47 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is
On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
by the host.
On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
>>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
>>> by the host.
>> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per
On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
>> by the host.
> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
> should send ACK or NACK.
On 3/11/21 12:18 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
>> by the host.
>
> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
> should send ACK or
> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
> by the host.
One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
should send ACK or NACK. If that interrupt is delayed, they stretch the
On 3/10/21 1:48 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 10/03/21 6:06 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/9/21 6:19 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 9/03/21 9:27 am, Chris Packham wrote:
On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Other than that, the only other real idea I have would be to monitor
On 10/03/21 6:06 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/9/21 6:19 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 9/03/21 9:27 am, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Other than that, the only other real idea I have would be to monitor
the i2c bus.
>>> I am in the fortunate
On 3/9/21 6:19 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> On 9/03/21 9:27 am, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Other than that, the only other real idea I have would be to monitor
>>> the i2c bus.
>> I am in the fortunate position of being able to go into the office and
>>
On 3/9/21 3:35 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 8/03/21 1:31 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/7/21 2:52 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> Fundamentally I think this is a problem with the fact that the LM81 is
>>> an SMBus device but the T2080 (and other Freescale SoCs) uses i2c and we
>>> emulate
On 9/03/21 9:27 am, Chris Packham wrote:
> On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Other than that, the only other real idea I have would be to monitor
>> the i2c bus.
> I am in the fortunate position of being able to go into the office and
> even happen to have the expensive scope at the
On 8/03/21 1:31 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/7/21 2:52 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> Fundamentally I think this is a problem with the fact that the LM81 is
>> an SMBus device but the T2080 (and other Freescale SoCs) uses i2c and we
>> emulate SMBus. I suspect the errant readings are when we
On 3/8/21 8:36 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 9/03/21 11:10 am, Chris Packham wrote:
>>
>> On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 3/7/21 8:37 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
> That's from -ENXIO which is used in only one place in i2c-mpc.c. I'll
> enable some debug and see
On 9/03/21 11:10 am, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/7/21 8:37 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> [ ... ]
That's from -ENXIO which is used in only one place in i2c-mpc.c. I'll
enable some debug and see what we get.
>>> For the errant readings there was
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:27:30PM +, Chris Packham wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Other than that, the only other real idea I have would be to monitor
> > the i2c bus.
> I am in the fortunate position of being able to go into the office and
> even happen to have the expensive scope at the moment. Now I
On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/7/21 8:37 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> That's from -ENXIO which is used in only one place in i2c-mpc.c. I'll
>>> enable some debug and see what we get.
>> For the errant readings there was nothing abnormal reported by the driver.
>>
>> For
On 8/03/21 5:59 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/7/21 8:37 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> That's from -ENXIO which is used in only one place in i2c-mpc.c. I'll
>>> enable some debug and see what we get.
>> For the errant readings there was nothing abnormal reported by the driver.
>>
>> For
On 3/7/21 8:37 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
[ ... ]
>> That's from -ENXIO which is used in only one place in i2c-mpc.c. I'll
>> enable some debug and see what we get.
>
> For the errant readings there was nothing abnormal reported by the driver.
>
> For the "No such device or address" I saw
On 8/03/21 3:27 pm, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 8/03/21 1:31 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/7/21 2:52 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've got a system using a PowerPC T2080 SoC and among other things has
>>> an LM81 hwmon chip.
>>>
>>> Under a high CPU load we see errant readings from
On 8/03/21 1:31 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/7/21 2:52 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've got a system using a PowerPC T2080 SoC and among other things has
>> an LM81 hwmon chip.
>>
>> Under a high CPU load we see errant readings from the LM81 as well as
>> actual failures. It's the
On 3/7/21 2:52 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a system using a PowerPC T2080 SoC and among other things has
> an LM81 hwmon chip.
>
> Under a high CPU load we see errant readings from the LM81 as well as
> actual failures. It's the errant readings that cause the most concern
>
Hi,
I've got a system using a PowerPC T2080 SoC and among other things has
an LM81 hwmon chip.
Under a high CPU load we see errant readings from the LM81 as well as
actual failures. It's the errant readings that cause the most concern
since we can easily ignore the read errors in our
30 matches
Mail list logo
