On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 10:43 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@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. > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
