From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38BDBC433F5 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:49:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Date:Subject:CC:To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=6NnjaOZdW9h1NC00UtLl7phjV9/7IObVDZ5eTE8w+ls=; b=WoNFYN5ZR15oIG YE0t4uTERX5zEzZOraZ6bbN96nJFJyrOVoDM6abHm8Li5KfRsqDryXFSCGDtvPUGbmLQ1BPffeZs8 qBVnKW3irVsWbJB24Jn5RRyNUFxgvWrFksr9BdckjLjurG02ueJBPMmPvF93kD3BXvtgQ+lpdVvNT yBbL0XRxhgTqfxymFMcoVce6cPFWfyff8qbb4iljT/hgYuhj2/kT0zI1H6dqbF9ceknMxrzB62eu9 GfVYWFOmjyWVbNx4bidVVAkxaJBItA870htdLeCaoFPhggRSvmvgYJ7QHK/snVSu6sYzROdoScEuC jsB6dkvS3CAoEI7WO5Fw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mu8jU-002nU8-4A; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:48:20 +0000 Received: from mx3.securetransport.de ([116.203.31.6]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mu8jP-002nT1-Lq for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:48:17 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dh-electronics.com; s=dhelectronicscom; t=1638776880; bh=9LjNAMfbHqPPYqfOd0H/bcQt7NiEEMGw6nLCEydrLY8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LBqpNm924/sExE8twPWKn1jD74Eg9zFlUHLKoKaMV1vIUKBy1rV5+s1kwoDWLWQQA IO6MGdGuApYNwsHMZDaA5FX6DLq6TDxBZaWHEwp2/3ksGXCGnZj5i5GHsT+tbfmwnj P8qdpnDr51SQypF7wATZGDAbOn+9xJsxrj1TI5vrMxpoCXLCTGaL+DrzptMB+6K3hz vCMj7s5SZmElU4KCRBZDRMN7JrGI2AtYRyzHaleZDCFHXREIYU450OhCCMFT9ZU6zJ Tv4r/OndW4cwR5pKApCQy48NYfSRKXAB9lPbzWt/fykludKxTGS3+f9M199Dmedfbz aDdK/a2UtEHiw== X-secureTransport-forwarded: yes From: Christoph Niedermaier Complaints-To: abuse@cubewerk.de To: Andrej Picej , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Adam Thomson CC: Support Opensource , Wim Van Sebroeck , "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Guenter Roeck Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] watchdog: da9062: Correct the timeout values Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH] watchdog: da9062: Correct the timeout values Thread-Index: AQHX6GQONgXT05Iq6ke/N4Kseos6o6wg6rAAgAATvjCABAXqAIAAE0gQ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:47:51 +0000 Message-ID: <46136729bb564aa6b9f332fa584b2575@dh-electronics.com> References: <20211203163539.91870-1-cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com> <4bfb6ab512cd45ee81c55361525987b7@dh-electronics.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211205_234816_037265_63B7E72C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.75 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org From: Andrej Picej Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 8:29 AM >>>> I measured the timeout values of my DA9061 chip. According to the >>>> information in the data sheet the formula should be: >>>> >>>> timeout = 2.048 * 2^(regval - 1) >>>> >>>> But my measured values differ from that. >>>> Accoring to my measured values the formula must be: >>>> >>>> timeout = 3.2 * 2^(regval - 1) >>>> >>>> Is there something wrong with my chip, or has anyone else noticed this as well? >>> >>> The driver assumes a static and well defined clock rate. Maybe that rate >>> is different in your system (if that is possible) ? >>> >>> Guenter >> >> @Andrej >> Do the values in the driver match what your chip does? >> > > Just did a quick test. The values in the driver match what the chip > does. I checked multiple timeouts 16, 32, 65 and 131 seconds. The > timeout triggers quite accurately. > >> I have not changed anything. After power on, the chip behaves like this. >> So I guess it either come from an OTP value or the wiring outside the chip. >> Does anyone know what needs to be checked? > > Can't help you here, sorry. > Thanks anyway, so now I know it must be problem with my DA9061 chip. @Adam Where can it come from? Can you give we a hint what to check? Thanks and best regards Christoph _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel