From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1064A2C0091
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat,  3 Aug 2013 18:45:04 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <1375519493.15999.83.camel@pasglop>
Subject: Re: windfarm_fcu_controls: cpu-pump-0 <HW FAULT>
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:44:53 +1000
In-Reply-To: <m2vc3nnp01.fsf@linux-m68k.org>
References: <87r4eb52s6.fsf@igel.home>
 <1375481448.15999.47.camel__48019.1930350431$1375481501$gmane$org@pasglop>
 <m2vc3nnp01.fsf@linux-m68k.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 10:43 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> 
> > Can you add some more printk's in there to check what's going on inside
> > wf_fcu_get_pump_minmax() ?
> 
> All values from mpu->processor_part_num are 0xffff.
> 
> > Also is it getting faults for both pumps ?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Does it work with the older driver ? (both the minmax and the reading of
> > the pump).
> 
> The minmax situation is the same, but otherwise appears to work (no fan
> reading errors logged).  Here is an example debug output:

Odd. Can you try to trace if there is any significant difference in the
i2c messages used ? Some typo I might have done somewhere ?

Something I might do at init time that puts them into a faulty state ?

I don't have one of these anymore (mine died) so I can't really test.

Cheers,
Ben.

> ** CPU 1 RPM: 300 Ex, 300, Pump: 1250, In, overtemp: 0
>   cpu 0, exhaust RPM: 300
>   cpu 0, temp raw: 023c, m_diode: 9982, b_diode: fffff799
>   temp: 52.139
>   cpu 0, current: 8.789, voltage: 1.286, power: 11.308 W
>   cpu 1, exhaust RPM: 300
>   cpu 1, temp raw: 021c, m_diode: a047, b_diode: fffff777
>   temp: 50.380
>   cpu 1, current: 8.666, voltage: 1.281, power: 11.108 W
>   power target: 55.000, error: 43.691
>   integral: 00f42f8d
>    integ_p: 10
>    adj_in_target: 65.011, ttarget: 74
>    deriv_p: -15
>    prop_p: -103
>    sum: -118
> 
> > What is the "failures" bitmask value ?
> 
> 3 for both.
> 
> Andreas.
>