From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rydberg@euromail.se, khali@linux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:58:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120915225841.GA3816@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1209151834120.2271@ubuntu>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 06:42:30PM -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> I have been getting a steady stream of wait_read timeouts on my 2010 MBP.
>
> After playing around with various values of APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT a value of
> 0x10000 reduces the wait_read failures to zero under most normal workloads
> - with and without AC power plugged in, at idle and and at make -j4 loads.
>
> While there I noticed we don't really need to udelay before first inb() -
> so I moved it down to after first and subsequent failures.
>
> Been running this for couple days without any issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@gmail.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> index 2827088..46cb458 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
> /* wait up to 32 ms for a status change. */
> #define APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT 0x0010
> #define APPLESMC_RETRY_WAIT 0x0100
> -#define APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT 0x8000
> +#define APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT 0x10000
>
> #define APPLESMC_READ_CMD 0x10
> #define APPLESMC_WRITE_CMD 0x11
> @@ -170,11 +170,11 @@ static int wait_read(void)
> u8 status;
> int us;
> for (us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT; us < APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT; us <<= 1) {
I wonder if it would make sense to keep APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT as it is now
and replace the loop termination conditions with
us <= APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT
That would accomplish the same, and APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT would reflect
the real maximum wait time.
Also, since the delay time can get quite large, would it make sense to replace
udelay with usleep_range() ?
Guenter
> - udelay(us);
> status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT);
> /* read: wait for smc to settle */
> if (status & 0x01)
> return 0;
> + udelay(us);
> }
>
> pr_warn("wait_read() fail: 0x%02x\n", status);
> @@ -192,11 +192,12 @@ static int send_byte(u8 cmd, u16 port)
>
> outb(cmd, port);
> for (us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT; us < APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT; us <<= 1) {
> - udelay(us);
> status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT);
> /* write: wait for smc to settle */
> - if (status & 0x02)
> + if (status & 0x02) {
> + udelay(us);
> continue;
> + }
> /* ready: cmd accepted, return */
> if (status & 0x04)
> return 0;
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rydberg@euromail.se, khali@linux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:58:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120915225841.GA3816@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1209151834120.2271@ubuntu>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 06:42:30PM -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> I have been getting a steady stream of wait_read timeouts on my 2010 MBP.
>
> After playing around with various values of APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT a value of
> 0x10000 reduces the wait_read failures to zero under most normal workloads
> - with and without AC power plugged in, at idle and and at make -j4 loads.
>
> While there I noticed we don't really need to udelay before first inb() -
> so I moved it down to after first and subsequent failures.
>
> Been running this for couple days without any issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@gmail.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> index 2827088..46cb458 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
> /* wait up to 32 ms for a status change. */
> #define APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT 0x0010
> #define APPLESMC_RETRY_WAIT 0x0100
> -#define APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT 0x8000
> +#define APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT 0x10000
>
> #define APPLESMC_READ_CMD 0x10
> #define APPLESMC_WRITE_CMD 0x11
> @@ -170,11 +170,11 @@ static int wait_read(void)
> u8 status;
> int us;
> for (us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT; us < APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT; us <<= 1) {
I wonder if it would make sense to keep APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT as it is now
and replace the loop termination conditions with
us <= APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT
That would accomplish the same, and APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT would reflect
the real maximum wait time.
Also, since the delay time can get quite large, would it make sense to replace
udelay with usleep_range() ?
Guenter
> - udelay(us);
> status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT);
> /* read: wait for smc to settle */
> if (status & 0x01)
> return 0;
> + udelay(us);
> }
>
> pr_warn("wait_read() fail: 0x%02x\n", status);
> @@ -192,11 +192,12 @@ static int send_byte(u8 cmd, u16 port)
>
> outb(cmd, port);
> for (us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT; us < APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT; us <<= 1) {
> - udelay(us);
> status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT);
> /* write: wait for smc to settle */
> - if (status & 0x02)
> + if (status & 0x02) {
> + udelay(us);
> continue;
> + }
> /* ready: cmd accepted, return */
> if (status & 0x04)
> return 0;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-15 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-15 22:42 [lm-sensors] [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay Parag Warudkar
2012-09-15 22:42 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-15 22:58 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2012-09-15 22:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-09-15 23:35 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-15 23:35 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-15 23:38 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-15 23:38 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-16 3:29 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-16 3:29 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-16 4:31 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2012-09-16 4:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-09-16 9:35 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-16 9:35 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-16 21:22 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-16 21:22 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-16 22:00 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2012-09-16 22:00 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-09-16 22:30 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-16 22:30 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 0:11 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 0:11 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 16:27 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 16:27 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 16:37 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2012-09-17 16:37 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-09-17 20:14 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 20:14 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 22:03 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2012-09-17 22:03 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-09-17 18:06 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 18:06 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 18:49 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 18:49 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 18:54 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 18:54 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 19:14 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 19:14 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 19:46 ` [lm-sensors] " Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 19:46 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-09-17 18:22 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 18:22 ` Parag Warudkar
2012-09-17 21:38 ` [lm-sensors] " Parag Warudkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120915225841.GA3816@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=parag.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=rydberg@euromail.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.