[PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[Jacopo Mondi]

The max9611 driver tests communications with the chip by reading the die
temperature during the probe function. If the temperature register
POR (power-on reset) value is returned from the test read, defer probe to
give the chip a bit more time to properly exit from reset.

Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>

---
Geert,
  I've not been able to reproduce the issue on my boards (M3-N
Salvator-XS and M3-W Salvator-X). As you reported the issue you might be
able to reproduce it, could you please test this?

Also, I opted for deferring probe instead of arbitrary repeat the
temperature read. What's your opinion?

Thanks
   j
---
 drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
index da073d72f649..30ae5879252c 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@
  * The complete formula to calculate temperature is:
  *     ((adc_read >> 7) * 1000) / (1 / 480 * 1000)
  */
+#define MAX9611_TEMP_POR		0x8000
 #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS		0x7f80
 #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG		0xff80
 #define MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG		0xd980
@@ -480,8 +481,10 @@ static int max9611_init(struct max9611_dev *max9611)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;

-	regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
+	if (regval == MAX9611_TEMP_POR)
+		return -EPROBE_DEFER;

+	regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
 	if ((regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS &&
 	     regval < MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG) ||
 	     regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG) {
--
2.23.0

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Jacopo,

CC i2c

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> wrote:
> The max9611 driver tests communications with the chip by reading the die
> temperature during the probe function. If the temperature register
> POR (power-on reset) value is returned from the test read, defer probe to
> give the chip a bit more time to properly exit from reset.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>

Thanks for your patch!

> Geert,
>   I've not been able to reproduce the issue on my boards (M3-N
> Salvator-XS and M3-W Salvator-X). As you reported the issue you might be
> able to reproduce it, could you please test this?

I can reproduce it on Salvator-XS with R-Car H3 ES2.0.
According to my logs, I've seen the issue on all Salvator-X(S) boards,
but not with the same frequency.  Probability is highest on H3 ES2.0
(ca. 5% of the boots since I first saw the issue), followed by H3 ES1.0,
M3-W, and M3-N.

After more investigation, my findings are:
  1. I cannot reproduce the issue if the max9611 driver is modular.
     Is it related to using max9611 "too soon" after i2c bus init?
     How can "i2c bus init" impact a slave device?
     Perhaps due to pin configuration, e.g. changing from another pin
     function or GPIO to function i2c4?
  2. Adding a delay at the top of max9611_init() fixes the issue.
     This would explain why the issue is less likely to happy on slower
     SoCs like M3-N.
  3. Disabling all other i2c slaves on i2c4 in DTS fixes the issue.
     Before, max9611 was initialized last, so this moves init earlier,
     contradicting theory #1.
  4. Just disabling the adv7482 (which registers 11 dummies i2c slaves)
     in DTS does not fix the issue.

Unfortunately i2c4 is exposed on a 60-pin Samtec QSH connector only,
for which I have no breakout adapter.

Wolfram: do you have any clues?

> Also, I opted for deferring probe instead of arbitrary repeat the
> temperature read. What's your opinion?

While this is probably OK if the max9611 driver is built-in, I'm afraid
this may lead to unbounded delays for a reprobe in case the driver
is modular.

> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@
>   * The complete formula to calculate temperature is:
>   *     ((adc_read >> 7) * 1000) / (1 / 480 * 1000)
>   */
> +#define MAX9611_TEMP_POR               0x8000
>  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS           0x7f80
>  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG           0xff80
>  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG           0xd980
> @@ -480,8 +481,10 @@ static int max9611_init(struct max9611_dev *max9611)
>         if (ret)
>                 return ret;
>
> -       regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
> +       if (regval == MAX9611_TEMP_POR)
> +               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>
> +       regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
>         if ((regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS &&
>              regval < MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG) ||
>              regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG) {

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:55:58 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> Hi Jacopo,
> 
> CC i2c

Ping. Wolfram, a query in here for you.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> wrote:
> > The max9611 driver tests communications with the chip by reading the die
> > temperature during the probe function. If the temperature register
> > POR (power-on reset) value is returned from the test read, defer probe to
> > give the chip a bit more time to properly exit from reset.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>  
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> > Geert,
> >   I've not been able to reproduce the issue on my boards (M3-N
> > Salvator-XS and M3-W Salvator-X). As you reported the issue you might be
> > able to reproduce it, could you please test this?  
> 
> I can reproduce it on Salvator-XS with R-Car H3 ES2.0.
> According to my logs, I've seen the issue on all Salvator-X(S) boards,
> but not with the same frequency.  Probability is highest on H3 ES2.0
> (ca. 5% of the boots since I first saw the issue), followed by H3 ES1.0,
> M3-W, and M3-N.
> 
> After more investigation, my findings are:
>   1. I cannot reproduce the issue if the max9611 driver is modular.
>      Is it related to using max9611 "too soon" after i2c bus init?
>      How can "i2c bus init" impact a slave device?
>      Perhaps due to pin configuration, e.g. changing from another pin
>      function or GPIO to function i2c4?
>   2. Adding a delay at the top of max9611_init() fixes the issue.
>      This would explain why the issue is less likely to happy on slower
>      SoCs like M3-N.
>   3. Disabling all other i2c slaves on i2c4 in DTS fixes the issue.
>      Before, max9611 was initialized last, so this moves init earlier,
>      contradicting theory #1.
>   4. Just disabling the adv7482 (which registers 11 dummies i2c slaves)
>      in DTS does not fix the issue.
> 
> Unfortunately i2c4 is exposed on a 60-pin Samtec QSH connector only,
> for which I have no breakout adapter.
> 
> Wolfram: do you have any clues?
> 
> > Also, I opted for deferring probe instead of arbitrary repeat the
> > temperature read. What's your opinion?  
> 
> While this is probably OK if the max9611 driver is built-in, I'm afraid
> this may lead to unbounded delays for a reprobe in case the driver
> is modular.
> 
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max9611.c
> > @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@
> >   * The complete formula to calculate temperature is:
> >   *     ((adc_read >> 7) * 1000) / (1 / 480 * 1000)
> >   */
> > +#define MAX9611_TEMP_POR               0x8000
> >  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS           0x7f80
> >  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG           0xff80
> >  #define MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG           0xd980
> > @@ -480,8 +481,10 @@ static int max9611_init(struct max9611_dev *max9611)
> >         if (ret)
> >                 return ret;
> >
> > -       regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
> > +       if (regval == MAX9611_TEMP_POR)
> > +               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > +       regval &= MAX9611_TEMP_MASK;
> >         if ((regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_POS &&
> >              regval < MAX9611_TEMP_MIN_NEG) ||
> >              regval > MAX9611_TEMP_MAX_NEG) {  
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> wrote:
> > The max9611 driver tests communications with the chip by reading the die
> > temperature during the probe function. If the temperature register
> > POR (power-on reset) value is returned from the test read, defer probe to
> > give the chip a bit more time to properly exit from reset.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > Geert,
> >   I've not been able to reproduce the issue on my boards (M3-N
> > Salvator-XS and M3-W Salvator-X). As you reported the issue you might be
> > able to reproduce it, could you please test this?
>
> I can reproduce it on Salvator-XS with R-Car H3 ES2.0.
> According to my logs, I've seen the issue on all Salvator-X(S) boards,
> but not with the same frequency.  Probability is highest on H3 ES2.0
> (ca. 5% of the boots since I first saw the issue), followed by H3 ES1.0,
> M3-W, and M3-N.
>
> After more investigation, my findings are:
>   1. I cannot reproduce the issue if the max9611 driver is modular.
>      Is it related to using max9611 "too soon" after i2c bus init?
>      How can "i2c bus init" impact a slave device?
>      Perhaps due to pin configuration, e.g. changing from another pin
>      function or GPIO to function i2c4?
>   2. Adding a delay at the top of max9611_init() fixes the issue.
>      This would explain why the issue is less likely to happy on slower
>      SoCs like M3-N.
>   3. Disabling all other i2c slaves on i2c4 in DTS fixes the issue.
>      Before, max9611 was initialized last, so this moves init earlier,
>      contradicting theory #1.
>   4. Just disabling the adv7482 (which registers 11 dummies i2c slaves)
>      in DTS does not fix the issue.
>
> Unfortunately i2c4 is exposed on a 60-pin Samtec QSH connector only,
> for which I have no breakout adapter.

Some soldering fixed that. Still investigating.
Here's a status update:

  A. I can reproduce the issue at 100 kHz instead of 400 kHz.
  B. 3 above doesn't seem to be true: I can reproduce it with all other
     slaves disabled.
  C. The code says:

        /*
         * need a delay here to make register configuration
         * stabilize. 1 msec at least, from empirical testing.
         */
        usleep_range(1000, 2000);

     However, the datasheet says:

        Parameter            MIN     TYP     MAX
        Conversion Time      -       2 ms    -

     So 1 ms is definitely too short.
     Unfortunately the datasheet has no maximum value.

  D. For 2: msleep(1) is sufficient, usleep_range(200, 500) is not.
     And this is still not explained by C.
     I also don't know yet who's resetting the chip on reboot, as it
     does not have a reset line, but all registers are zeroed (except
     for the POR temperature value).

To be investigated more...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Defer probe on POR read

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 7:45 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> wrote:
> > > The max9611 driver tests communications with the chip by reading the die
> > > temperature during the probe function. If the temperature register
> > > POR (power-on reset) value is returned from the test read, defer probe to
> > > give the chip a bit more time to properly exit from reset.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>
> >
> > >   I've not been able to reproduce the issue on my boards (M3-N
> > > Salvator-XS and M3-W Salvator-X). As you reported the issue you might be
> > > able to reproduce it, could you please test this?
> >
> > I can reproduce it on Salvator-XS with R-Car H3 ES2.0.
> > According to my logs, I've seen the issue on all Salvator-X(S) boards,
> > but not with the same frequency.  Probability is highest on H3 ES2.0
> > (ca. 5% of the boots since I first saw the issue), followed by H3 ES1.0,
> > M3-W, and M3-N.
> >
> > After more investigation, my findings are:
> >   1. I cannot reproduce the issue if the max9611 driver is modular.
> >      Is it related to using max9611 "too soon" after i2c bus init?
> >      How can "i2c bus init" impact a slave device?
> >      Perhaps due to pin configuration, e.g. changing from another pin
> >      function or GPIO to function i2c4?

Not true: I managed to reproduce it with a modular driver.

> >   2. Adding a delay at the top of max9611_init() fixes the issue.
> >      This would explain why the issue is less likely to happy on slower
> >      SoCs like M3-N.
> >   3. Disabling all other i2c slaves on i2c4 in DTS fixes the issue.
> >      Before, max9611 was initialized last, so this moves init earlier,
> >      contradicting theory #1.
> >   4. Just disabling the adv7482 (which registers 11 dummies i2c slaves)
> >      in DTS does not fix the issue.
> >
> > Unfortunately i2c4 is exposed on a 60-pin Samtec QSH connector only,
> > for which I have no breakout adapter.
>
> Some soldering fixed that. Still investigating.
> Here's a status update:
>
>   A. I can reproduce the issue at 100 kHz instead of 400 kHz.
>   B. 3 above doesn't seem to be true: I can reproduce it with all other
>      slaves disabled.
>   C. The code says:
>
>         /*
>          * need a delay here to make register configuration
>          * stabilize. 1 msec at least, from empirical testing.
>          */
>         usleep_range(1000, 2000);
>
>      However, the datasheet says:
>
>         Parameter            MIN     TYP     MAX
>         Conversion Time      -       2 ms    -
>
>      So 1 ms is definitely too short.
>      Unfortunately the datasheet has no maximum value.

usleep_range(1000, 2000) usually results in a sleep time of 2.0 ms: OK
It may take longer: I saw 4.8 -- 7.7 ms (nothing in between 2.0 -- 4.8!): OK
It may take shorter:
  - 1.2 -- 1.7 ms: FAIL
  - 1.8 ms - 2 ms: OK

So a minimum delay of 2 ms seems like a good value.

>   D. For 2: msleep(1) is sufficient, usleep_range(200, 500) is not.
>      And this is still not explained by C.

Without adding an msleep() call to max9611_init(), the usleep_range()
call in max9611_read_single() happens at an arbitrary moment.
After adding an msleep() call to max9611_init(), the code becomes
synchronized to the jiffies clock, and the usleep_range() call in
max9611_read_single() never completes in less than 2 ms, thus avoiding
the issue.

>      I also don't know yet who's resetting the chip on reboot, as it
>      does not have a reset line, but all registers are zeroed (except
>      for the POR temperature value).

Looks like the PMIC powers down the +3.3V rail for ca. 25 ms when PSCI
initiates a system reboot.

Patch sent: "[PATCH] iio: adc: max9611: Fix too short conversion time
delay"
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191113092133.23723-1-geert+renesas@glider.be/).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds