From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: LM Sensors <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:44:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E573B6.9040903@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140126211357.6fa68909@endymion.delvare>
Hi Jean,
On 01/26/2014 12:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Adding Wei Ni to Cc, as he provided the commit which causes problem.
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:28:16 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the lm90 driver is no longer working on PCs with the 3.13 kernel ... or at least not without
>> special configuration.
>>
>> This is what I get if I try to instantiate a device on it (max6695):
>>
>> i2c 1-0018: Driver lm90 requests probe deferral
>> i2c i2c-1: new_device: Instantiated device max6695 at 0x18
>>
>> The regulator core always returns -EPROBE_DEFER if the platform does not support devicetree
>> and if the regulator it is looking for does not exist. Since the driver now requires a mandatory
>> regulator (commit 3e0f964f2ad - hwmon: (lm90) Add power control), and the regulator it requests
>> does not exist on a PC, the result is not really surprising. I thought the regulator core would
>> realize that it has to return a dummy regulator, but apparently that is not the case, or I don't
>> know how to configure it.
>>
>> Any idea what I might need to do to get it working ?
>
> Me, I really don't know. I seem to remember I tested Wei's patch set on
> an emulated ADM1032 chip and it was working fine. So maybe it depends
> on the kernel configuration, or something changed on the regulator side
> meanwhile.
>
The regulator code changed with 3.13; the dummy regulator no longer exists,
and the functionality it provided is supposed to be handled automatically.
But that only really works on devicetree based systems and otherwise returns
-EPROBE_DEFER as mentioned above.
Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be
configured from user space. I found neither. In the first case, we should create
a dependency for the LM90 driver; in the latter case, we would have to make sure
that it is well documented (I'd grumble on that, though - it would result in
never ending trouble for us, having to repeatedly explain how this is now
supposed to work).
Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV
instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable
or even feasible.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
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: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: LM Sensors <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:44:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E573B6.9040903@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140126211357.6fa68909@endymion.delvare>
Hi Jean,
On 01/26/2014 12:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Adding Wei Ni to Cc, as he provided the commit which causes problem.
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:28:16 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the lm90 driver is no longer working on PCs with the 3.13 kernel ... or at least not without
>> special configuration.
>>
>> This is what I get if I try to instantiate a device on it (max6695):
>>
>> i2c 1-0018: Driver lm90 requests probe deferral
>> i2c i2c-1: new_device: Instantiated device max6695 at 0x18
>>
>> The regulator core always returns -EPROBE_DEFER if the platform does not support devicetree
>> and if the regulator it is looking for does not exist. Since the driver now requires a mandatory
>> regulator (commit 3e0f964f2ad - hwmon: (lm90) Add power control), and the regulator it requests
>> does not exist on a PC, the result is not really surprising. I thought the regulator core would
>> realize that it has to return a dummy regulator, but apparently that is not the case, or I don't
>> know how to configure it.
>>
>> Any idea what I might need to do to get it working ?
>
> Me, I really don't know. I seem to remember I tested Wei's patch set on
> an emulated ADM1032 chip and it was working fine. So maybe it depends
> on the kernel configuration, or something changed on the regulator side
> meanwhile.
>
The regulator code changed with 3.13; the dummy regulator no longer exists,
and the functionality it provided is supposed to be handled automatically.
But that only really works on devicetree based systems and otherwise returns
-EPROBE_DEFER as mentioned above.
Maybe there is some configuration option, or maybe something needs to be
configured from user space. I found neither. In the first case, we should create
a dependency for the LM90 driver; in the latter case, we would have to make sure
that it is well documented (I'd grumble on that, though - it would result in
never ending trouble for us, having to repeatedly explain how this is now
supposed to work).
Another possible fix would be to have the regulator core return -ENODEV
instead of -EPROBE_DEFER on non-dt systems. No idea if this would be acceptable
or even feasible.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-26 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-26 19:28 [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13 Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 19:28 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 20:13 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:13 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:42 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:42 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2014-01-26 20:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 20:49 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 20:49 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 21:22 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:22 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:40 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:40 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:53 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:53 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 22:02 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:02 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 23:37 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:37 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:44 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 21:44 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-26 23:15 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:15 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 10:10 ` [lm-sensors] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-01-27 10:10 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-01-27 13:18 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-27 13:18 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:50 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:50 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:04 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 23:51 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 23:51 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 4:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 4:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 10:34 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 10:34 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 17:19 ` Stephen Warren
2014-01-27 17:19 ` Stephen Warren
2014-01-27 18:50 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 18:50 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 22:04 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-27 22:04 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-27 23:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 23:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-27 23:58 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 23:58 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 2:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-28 2:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-28 10:24 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 10:24 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 12:34 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-28 12:34 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 22:36 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-27 22:36 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:52 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 20:52 ` Mark Brown
2014-01-26 21:47 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 21:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-26 22:01 ` [lm-sensors] " Mark Brown
2014-01-26 22:01 ` Mark Brown
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=52E573B6.9040903@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=wni@nvidia.com \
/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.