From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Biwen Li <biwen.li@nxp.com>
Cc: Nandor Han <nandor.han@vaisala.com>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
"a.zummo@towertech.it" <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
"linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [v2] rtc: pcf85363/pcf85263: fix error that failed to run hwclock -w
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:06:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190826100650.GB21713@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR04MB449081DBB762BB30E2C55F638FA10@DB7PR04MB4490.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Hi,
On 26/08/2019 09:49:49+0000, Biwen Li wrote:
> >
> > On 8/26/19 7:29 AM, Biwen Li wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 8/16/19 10:40 PM, Li Yang wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:30 AM Alexandre Belloni
> > >>> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 16/08/2019 10:50:49-0500, Li Yang wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:05 AM Alexandre Belloni
> > >>>>> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 16/08/2019 10:46:36+0800, Biwen Li wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Issue:
> > >>>>>>> - # hwclock -w
> > >>>>>>> hwclock: RTC_SET_TIME: Invalid argument
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Why:
> > >>>>>>> - Relative patch:
> > >> https://lkml.org
> > >> %2Flkml%2F2019%2F4%2F3%2F55&data=02%7C01%7Cbiwen.li%40n
> > xp.
> > >>
> > com%7Cff8cebc3f1034ae3fa9608d725ff9e5e%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99
> > >>
> > c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637019652111923736&sdata=spY6e22YOkOF
> > >> 3%2BF7crSM0M6xPmOhgULDqMZLQw%2BAmdI%3D&reserved=0 ,
> > this patch
> > >>>>>>> will always check for unwritable registers, it will compare reg
> > >>>>>>> with max_register in regmap_writeable.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - In drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf85363.c, CTRL_STOP_EN is 0x2e, but
> > >> DT_100THS
> > >>>>>>> is 0, max_regiter is 0x2f, then reg will be equal to 0x30,
> > >>>>>>> '0x30 < 0x2f' is false,so regmap_writeable will return false.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - Root cause: the buf[] was written to a wrong place in the file
> > >>>>>>> drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf85363.c
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This is not true, the RTC wraps the register accesses properly
> > >>>>>> and this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This performance hack probably deserve some explanation in the
> > >>>>> code comment. :)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> is probably something that should be handled by regmap_writable.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The address wrapping is specific to this RTC chip. Is it also
> > >>>>> commonly used by other I2C devices? I'm not sure if
> > >>>>> regmap_writable should handle the wrapping case if it is too special.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Most of the i2c RTCs do address wrapping which is sometimes the
> > >>>> only way to properly set the time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Adding Mark and Nandor to the loop.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Leo
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >> `regmap` provides couple of ways to validate the registers:
> > >> max_register, callback function and write table. All of these are
> > >> optional, so it gives you the freedom to customize it as needed.
> > >>
> > >> In this situation probably you could:
> > >> 1. Avoid using the wrapping feature of pcf85363 (you can just
> > >> provide separate calls for stop, reset and time confguration). In
> > >> this way the `max_register` validation method will work fine.
> > > Yes, I use this way. Path as follows:
> > > Stop and reset - > set time > stop
> > >
> >
> > Some of the concerns regarding this method was that it might not be precise
> > enough. That because you need 2 I2C operations (one for stop and one for time
> > configuration). Not sure about your case if this is a problem or not.
> Ok, got it, thanks.
To be clear, for this RTC it is fine to separate both writes. Want I
want is a corrected commit message with a proper reference to
8b9f9d4dc511309918c4f6793bae7387c0c638af instead of a link to lkml.org
and a proper explanation.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-26 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-16 2:46 [v2] rtc: pcf85363/pcf85263: fix error that failed to run hwclock -w Biwen Li
2019-08-16 8:04 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-08-16 15:50 ` Li Yang
2019-08-16 16:28 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-08-16 19:40 ` Li Yang
2019-08-20 18:22 ` Mark Brown
2019-08-20 18:33 ` Li Yang
2019-08-21 11:21 ` Mark Brown
2019-08-21 11:24 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-08-21 11:30 ` Mark Brown
2019-08-21 11:38 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-08-21 11:47 ` Mark Brown
2019-08-21 6:20 ` Nandor Han
2019-08-26 4:29 ` [EXT] " Biwen Li
2019-08-26 9:17 ` Nandor Han
2019-08-26 9:49 ` Biwen Li
2019-08-26 10:06 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2019-08-26 10:40 ` Biwen Li
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=20190826100650.GB21713@piout.net \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=biwen.li@nxp.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=leoyang.li@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nandor.han@vaisala.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).