Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] hwmon: (lm90) add support to handle IRQ

[Wei Ni]

On 07/18/2013 11:58 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Wei,
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:48:06 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>> When the temperature exceed the limit range value,
>> the driver can handle the interrupt.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/hwmon/lm90.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index c90037f..1cc3d19 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/err.h>
>>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>  #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>  
>>  /*
>>   * Addresses to scan
>> @@ -1460,6 +1461,17 @@ static bool lm90_is_tripped(struct i2c_client *client)
>>  	return true;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static irqreturn_t lm90_irq_thread(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> +{
>> +	struct lm90_data *data = dev_id;
>> +	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(data->hwmon_dev->parent);
> 
> Why are you passing data as the dev_id in the first place, instead of
> client? It's easier to get the data when you have the client
> (i2c_get_clientdata) than the other way around.

Oh, I'm stupid :)
I will pass the client.

> 
>> +
>> +	if (lm90_is_tripped(client))
>> +		return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +	else
>> +		return IRQ_NONE;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>  		      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>  {
>> @@ -1536,6 +1548,18 @@ static int lm90_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>  		goto exit_remove_files;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (client->irq >= 0) {
> 
> I though you had agreed to just check for (client->irq)?

Oh, yes, I forgot to change it, thanks, I will update it.

> 
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "lm90 IRQ: %d\n", client->irq);
> 
> The "lm90" is redundant, dev_dbg will use the chip name as a prefix.

Ok, I will remove it.

> 
>> +		err = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq,
>> +						NULL, lm90_irq_thread,
>> +						IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> +						"lm90", data);
>> +		if (err < 0) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "cannot request interrupt\n");
> 
> You should include the IRQ number in the error message, it is useful
> for investigating the issue. Not everyone will have the debugging
> message above enabled.

Yes, you are right, I will add the IRQ number.

> 
>> +			goto exit_remove_files;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	return 0;
>>  
>>  exit_remove_files:
> 
> That's it for the code. Now I'm not sure I understand what you are
> trying to do and what this is all good for.
> 
> First of all, how is the chip wired on your system? You are using an
> NCT1008, right? Which output of the chip is connected to your interrupt
> line, THERM or ALERT/THERM2? ALERT is normally used for SMBus Alert but
> I suppose it could be used for an interrupt too. THERM and THERM2 OTOH
> are comparator outputs, they stay low as long as the temperature are
> above the therm limits. Reading the status register won't bring them
> back up as I understand it, and contrary to the ALERT output, they
> can't be masked. Won't this result in an interrupt flood if using
> IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW? Have you tested your code already?

Let me explain why I want to add the IRQ thread.
In our tegra30 platform, we use an NCT1008, and in our downstream tree,
it programmed as following:
1. The pin THERM is connected to the PMIC, we will set the THERM limit
in the initialization, once the this limit is tripped, it will trigged
the PMIC, and the PMIC will shutdown the system immediately.
2. The pin ALERT/THERM2 is configured as ALERT, and it is connected to
the interrupt line. In the platform init, we will prepare some trip
temps, such as 20C, 40C,60C, 80C, and we will set 20C to the
remote-low-temp-limit, and set 40C to remote-high-temp-limit. When the
temperature exceed this rang, it will interrupt the system, then we will
update the low/high limit to next rang, for example, if the temp raise
to 50C, we will set 40C to low-limit, and set 60C to hight-limit, then
we will run the throttle functions, and update cooling state.

We wish to upstream these codes, but as you know, it's difficult to use
current lm90.c and thermal framework to implement it, and these codes
related many other things, such as throttling cpufreq, other clock freq.
So at first, I want to update the lm90.c, so that I can add it to the
thermal fw and use interrupt handler easily. And at the same time I
followed the thermal framework thread, there has new infrastructure
posted, which is more easy to add lm90 to thermal fw.

> 
> Also I don't think just logging an error message is the right thing to
> do in the case of overheating. The code to handle SMBus alerts is from
> me, and it does indeed just log the problems, but it was really only
> meant as a proof of concept when I first added support for SMBus Alert.
> Today we could do better than this, starting with issuing sysfs
> notifications to the relevant alarm files (several other hwmon drivers
> are doing that already.)

yes, I can try to use sysfs_notify() for the alarm.

> 
> For a real system, if the THERM output is connected to an interrupt line
> (instead of directly to a fan controller) I would expect the platform
> to provide a callback to handle thermal events and take whatever
> appropriate measure is needed (e.g. throttling.) Just logging the
> problem won't save the system, by the time someone looks at the log it
> might be too late.

In our downstream tree, we write a new driver nct1008.c, whci can handle
these interrupts and all other things, but as you know this driver can't
be upstreamed, because there already has the lm90.c :).
Anyway I think this patch is the first step of the implementation.

> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/