windfarm_fcu_controls: cpu-pump-0 <HW FAULT>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Sat Aug 3 18:44:53 EST 2013
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 10:43 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at 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.
>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list