| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5669BB37.3050207@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:49:43 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Andreas Werner <andreas.werner@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jdelvare@...e.com,
lm-sensors@...sensors.org, wni@...dia.com
Subject: Re: LM90 driver and ti tmp461 detection
On 12/10/2015 09:12 AM, Andreas Werner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:41:57AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/10/2015 04:08 AM, Andreas Werner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> i have a temperature sensor device named "TI TMP461" which is quite the
>>> same than the tmp451 which is already included in the lm90 driver.
>>>
>>> I just want to add the tmp461 to the driver but currently i have no way
>>> to differ between the tmp461 and tmp451.
>>>
>>> The main different is that the tmp461 address can be configured by to Pins
>>> whereas the tmp451 has a fixed address.
>>>
>>> The register layout is quite the same except that the tmp461 has one
>>> register more (0x16 Channel Enable Register).
>>>
>>> Every zero bit is the same for both bits, so we cannot use these bits for
>>> identification.
>>>
>>> Does anybody of you have a tmp451 to read out the register 0x16 (which is
>>> not implement but i expect a value). May be we can use this to
>>> identify the tmp461.
>>>
>>
>> Here is a register dump.
>>
>> 00: 5d 69 00 04 08 bf 00 ff 53 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ]i.???..S.......
>> 10: a0 00 00 00 00 f0 00 00 00 a9 00 00 00 00 00 00 ?....?...?......
>> 20: b8 0a 01 00 00 XX 00 00 00 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 ???..X....?.....
>> 30: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 40: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 60: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>> f0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 55 00 ..............U.
>>
>> there is nothing to distinguish the two chips as far as I can see.
>> Is your system a devicetree system ? If so, you can just
>> provide a compatible statement such as
>> compatible = "ti,tmp461", "ti,tmp451";
>> or simply instantiate the chip as tmp451.
>>
>> Feel free to provide a patch adding '{ "tmp461", tmp451 },'
>> to lm90_id as well as the necessary documentation, but I don't
>> think there is anything we can do to detect the chip.
>>
>> On the other side, I am a bit concerned that the chip detection doesn't
>> work well, since the chip ID register is really unsupported and just happens
>> to return 0 for both chips. I wonder if there are other TI chips which may
>> be mis-detected as TMP451.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Guenter
>>
>
> Hi,
> thanks for the register dump :-)
>
> There is one difference. The temperature ranges differ:
>
> TMP451:
> Standard Mode: 0 to +127
> Extended Mode: -64 to +191
>
> TMP461:
> Standard Mode: -40 to +127
> Extended Mode: -64 to +191
>
> Therefore the calcualtion is different then the tmp451 one.
>
> I also aggree with you with the magical ID register. I hate such
> kind of register with are not documented and may have a value.
>
> I have a DT based board yes, but i have also planed to submit my changes
> and also wanted to implement the autodetection of the chip.
>
> I have also planned (or need) to implement the "n-Factor Correction" for the
> CPU diodes. There is a register to set this value in the tmp451 and tmp461.
> Would that make sense to add a DT property for the driver to be able
> to set this value? What do you think?
>
See max6697.c for some examples. Maybe we can use similar bindings.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists