lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: hwmon: drivetemp: bogus values after wake up from suspend
From
Date
On 4/7/20 3:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 4/6/20 9:23 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>
>> I've been giving the drivetemp hwmon driver a try and am very happy
>> with it; works right away and - much to my surprise - doesn't wake up
>> HDDs that have gone to sleep. Nice!
>>
>> I did notice one tiny thing though: after waking up from suspend, my SSD
>> (Samsung 850 Pro) reports a few initial bogus values - suspiciously -128°,
>> which is definitely not the temperature in my office. While this is more
>> a cosmetic problem, it cramps my monitoring setup and leads to wrong graphs.
>> Can't have that!
>>
>> So I looked into the source and found that the values are (understandably)
>> passed on unfiltered/uncapped. Since it's unlikely any active device has
>> operating temperature below-zero, I figured the laziest way is to cap the
>> value to positive:
>>
>> diff -rup a/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c    2020-04-02 08:02:32.000000000 +0200
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c    2020-04-06 18:13:04.892554087 +0200
>> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(drivetemp_devlist);
>>  #define INVALID_TEMP        0x80
>>
>>  #define temp_is_valid(temp)    ((temp) != INVALID_TEMP)
>> -#define temp_from_sct(temp)    (((s8)(temp)) * 1000)
>> +#define temp_from_sct(temp)    (max(0, ((s8)(temp)) * 1000))
>>
>>  static inline bool ata_id_smart_supported(u16 *id)
>>  {
>>
>> The assumption is of course *theoretically* wrong since some
>> equipment might indeed operate in negative C°. One way might be
>> to use the device's "low" operating point first, but then that
>> might not be available and we'd be back to capping to 0.
>> I'm open to other suggestions. :)
>>
>
> Looking into the code, 0x80 or -128 indeed reflects an invalid temperature.

Excellent, that's of course much better than just capping to 0.

> Any chance you can apply the following to see if it helps ?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c
> index 370d0c74eb01..c27239eb28cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/drivetemp.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,8 @@ static int drivetemp_get_scttemp(struct drivetemp_data *st, u32 attr, long *val)
> return err;
> switch (attr) {
> case hwmon_temp_input:
> + if (!temp_is_valid(buf[SCT_STATUS_TEMP]))
> + return -ENODATA;
> *val = temp_from_sct(buf[SCT_STATUS_TEMP]);
> break;
> case hwmon_temp_lowest:
>
> I am not sure what the best error code would be - suggestions welcome.

Gave it a try and had to wait overnight for things to cool down
(just suspending for an hour wouldn't do it). Right after wakeup sensors
now shows "N/A" as expected, and no illegal values in drivetemp or my
monitoring; missing values are perfectly fine.
After a few minutes correct values show up and all is good.

In case you submit this as official patch feel free to add my
Reported-by/Tested-by. Thanks for looking into it!

cheers
Holger

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-08 05:59    [W:0.068 / U:6.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site