From: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de
Since commit 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array"), booting a board populated with a MAX11601 results in a flood of warnings:
max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 8 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 9 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 10 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 11 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 12 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 13 subset of 0. Never used ...
These warnings are caused by incorrect offsets used for differential channels in the MAX1363_4X_CHANS() and MAX1363_8X_CHANS() macros.
The max1363_mode_table[] defines the differential channel mappings as follows:
MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(0, 1, 1 << 12), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(2, 3, 1 << 13), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(4, 5, 1 << 14), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(6, 7, 1 << 15), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(8, 9, 1 << 16), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(10, 11, 1 << 17), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(1, 0, 1 << 18), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(3, 2, 1 << 19), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(5, 4, 1 << 20), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(7, 6, 1 << 21), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(9, 8, 1 << 22), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(11, 10, 1 << 23),
Update the macros to follow this same pattern, ensuring that the scan masks are valid and preventing the warnings.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array") Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron jic23@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de --- Changes since v1: - Fix the problem by changing the MAX1363_4X_CHANS() and MAX1363_8X_CHANS() macros. (Jonathan)
drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c b/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c index a7e9912fb44a..bc44b4604ef4 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c @@ -511,10 +511,10 @@ static const struct iio_event_spec max1363_events[] = { MAX1363_CHAN_U(1, _s1, 1, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ MAX1363_CHAN_U(2, _s2, 2, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ MAX1363_CHAN_U(3, _s3, 3, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(0, 1, d0m1, 4, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(2, 3, d2m3, 5, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(1, 0, d1m0, 6, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(3, 2, d3m2, 7, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(0, 1, d0m1, 12, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(2, 3, d2m3, 13, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(1, 0, d1m0, 18, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(3, 2, d3m2, 19, bits, ev_spec, num_ev_spec), \ IIO_CHAN_SOFT_TIMESTAMP(8) \ }
@@ -609,14 +609,14 @@ static const enum max1363_modes max11608_mode_list[] = { MAX1363_CHAN_U(5, _s5, 5, bits, NULL, 0), \ MAX1363_CHAN_U(6, _s6, 6, bits, NULL, 0), \ MAX1363_CHAN_U(7, _s7, 7, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(0, 1, d0m1, 8, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(2, 3, d2m3, 9, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(4, 5, d4m5, 10, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(6, 7, d6m7, 11, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(1, 0, d1m0, 12, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(3, 2, d3m2, 13, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(5, 4, d5m4, 14, bits, NULL, 0), \ - MAX1363_CHAN_B(7, 6, d7m6, 15, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(0, 1, d0m1, 12, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(2, 3, d2m3, 13, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(4, 5, d4m5, 14, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(6, 7, d6m7, 15, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(1, 0, d1m0, 18, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(3, 2, d3m2, 19, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(5, 4, d5m4, 20, bits, NULL, 0), \ + MAX1363_CHAN_B(7, 6, d7m6, 21, bits, NULL, 0), \ IIO_CHAN_SOFT_TIMESTAMP(16) \ } static const struct iio_chan_spec max11602_channels[] = MAX1363_8X_CHANS(8);
From: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de
The IIO core issues warnings when a scan mask is a subset of a previous entry in the available_scan_masks array.
On a board using a MAX11601, the following warning is observed:
max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 7 subset of 6. Never used
This occurs because the entries in the max11607_mode_list[] array are not ordered correctly. To fix this, reorder the entries so that no scan mask is a subset of an earlier one.
While at it, reorder the mode_list[] arrays for other supported chips as well, to prevent similar warnings on different variants.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array") Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de --- Changes since v1: - Also reorder other mode_list entries. (Jonathan)
drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c | 19 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c b/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c index bc44b4604ef4..9dd547e62b6c 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c @@ -532,23 +532,23 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec max1363_channels[] = /* Applies to max1236, max1237 */ static const enum max1363_modes max1236_mode_list[] = { _s0, _s1, _s2, _s3, - s0to1, s0to2, s0to3, + s0to1, s0to2, s2to3, s0to3, d0m1, d2m3, d1m0, d3m2, d0m1to2m3, d1m0to3m2, - s2to3, };
/* Applies to max1238, max1239 */ static const enum max1363_modes max1238_mode_list[] = { _s0, _s1, _s2, _s3, _s4, _s5, _s6, _s7, _s8, _s9, _s10, _s11, s0to1, s0to2, s0to3, s0to4, s0to5, s0to6, + s6to7, s6to8, s6to9, s6to10, s6to11, s0to7, s0to8, s0to9, s0to10, s0to11, d0m1, d2m3, d4m5, d6m7, d8m9, d10m11, d1m0, d3m2, d5m4, d7m6, d9m8, d11m10, - d0m1to2m3, d0m1to4m5, d0m1to6m7, d0m1to8m9, d0m1to10m11, - d1m0to3m2, d1m0to5m4, d1m0to7m6, d1m0to9m8, d1m0to11m10, - s6to7, s6to8, s6to9, s6to10, s6to11, - d6m7to8m9, d6m7to10m11, d7m6to9m8, d7m6to11m10, + d0m1to2m3, d0m1to4m5, d0m1to6m7, d6m7to8m9, + d0m1to8m9, d6m7to10m11, d0m1to10m11, d1m0to3m2, + d1m0to5m4, d1m0to7m6, d7m6to9m8, d1m0to9m8, + d7m6to11m10, d1m0to11m10, };
#define MAX1363_12X_CHANS(bits) { \ @@ -584,16 +584,15 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec max1238_channels[] = MAX1363_12X_CHANS(12);
static const enum max1363_modes max11607_mode_list[] = { _s0, _s1, _s2, _s3, - s0to1, s0to2, s0to3, - s2to3, + s0to1, s0to2, s2to3, + s0to3, d0m1, d2m3, d1m0, d3m2, d0m1to2m3, d1m0to3m2, };
static const enum max1363_modes max11608_mode_list[] = { _s0, _s1, _s2, _s3, _s4, _s5, _s6, _s7, - s0to1, s0to2, s0to3, s0to4, s0to5, s0to6, s0to7, - s6to7, + s0to1, s0to2, s0to3, s0to4, s0to5, s0to6, s6to7, s0to7, d0m1, d2m3, d4m5, d6m7, d1m0, d3m2, d5m4, d7m6, d0m1to2m3, d0m1to4m5, d0m1to6m7,
On 16/05/2025 20:39, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de
The IIO core issues warnings when a scan mask is a subset of a previous entry in the available_scan_masks array.
On a board using a MAX11601, the following warning is observed:
max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 7 subset of 6. Never used
This occurs because the entries in the max11607_mode_list[] array are not ordered correctly. To fix this, reorder the entries so that no scan mask is a subset of an earlier one.
While at it, reorder the mode_list[] arrays for other supported chips as well, to prevent similar warnings on different variants.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array")
Same comment as for patch1/2
Yours, -- Matti
On Mon, 19 May 2025 08:02:33 +0300 Matti Vaittinen mazziesaccount@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/2025 20:39, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de
The IIO core issues warnings when a scan mask is a subset of a previous entry in the available_scan_masks array.
On a board using a MAX11601, the following warning is observed:
max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 7 subset of 6. Never used
This occurs because the entries in the max11607_mode_list[] array are not ordered correctly. To fix this, reorder the entries so that no scan mask is a subset of an earlier one.
While at it, reorder the mode_list[] arrays for other supported chips as well, to prevent similar warnings on different variants.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array")
Same comment as for patch1/2
Yours, -- Matti
Likewise, dropped the fixes tag. Admittedly that's the somewhat lazy option. I'd less fussed than normal on this because the worst that happens is we print warnings and sample more channels than strictly necessary.
Jonathan
On 16/05/2025 20:38, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam festevam@denx.de
Since commit 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array"), booting a board populated with a MAX11601 results in a flood of warnings:
max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 8 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 9 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 10 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 11 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 12 subset of 0. Never used max1363 1-0064: available_scan_mask 13 subset of 0. Never used ...
These warnings are caused by incorrect offsets used for differential channels in the MAX1363_4X_CHANS() and MAX1363_8X_CHANS() macros.
The max1363_mode_table[] defines the differential channel mappings as follows:
MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(0, 1, 1 << 12), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(2, 3, 1 << 13), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(4, 5, 1 << 14), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(6, 7, 1 << 15), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(8, 9, 1 << 16), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(10, 11, 1 << 17), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(1, 0, 1 << 18), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(3, 2, 1 << 19), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(5, 4, 1 << 20), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(7, 6, 1 << 21), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(9, 8, 1 << 22), MAX1363_MODE_DIFF_SINGLE(11, 10, 1 << 23),
Update the macros to follow this same pattern, ensuring that the scan masks are valid and preventing the warnings.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 2718f15403fb ("iio: sanity check available_scan_masks array")
I could argue the problem which is fixed is not related to the 2718f15403fb. I'd say the problem has been the commit which introduced the 'offending' masks instead. The 2718f15403fb is not fixed by this change. It could help identifying the faulty releases if correct commit was pointed here.
Yours, -- Matti
Hi Matti,
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:01 AM Matti Vaittinen mazziesaccount@gmail.com wrote:
I could argue the problem which is fixed is not related to the 2718f15403fb. I'd say the problem has been the commit which introduced the 'offending' masks instead. The 2718f15403fb is not fixed by this change. It could help identifying the faulty releases if correct commit was pointed here.
Fair enough, thanks.
I am going through this driver's history, and it looks like the masks have been always wrong, since the beginning.
I was not able to point to an exact commit, though.
Maybe I can remove the Fixes line. Jonathan?
On Mon, 19 May 2025 21:31:22 -0300 Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Matti,
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:01 AM Matti Vaittinen mazziesaccount@gmail.com wrote:
I could argue the problem which is fixed is not related to the 2718f15403fb. I'd say the problem has been the commit which introduced the 'offending' masks instead. The 2718f15403fb is not fixed by this change. It could help identifying the faulty releases if correct commit was pointed here.
Fair enough, thanks.
I am going through this driver's history, and it looks like the masks have been always wrong, since the beginning.
I was not able to point to an exact commit, though.
Maybe I can remove the Fixes line. Jonathan?
Hmm. I agree this one is misleading and the history get it right complex (and depends on introduction of various devices over time.
I'll drop the fixes tag and apply. Note this will only go upstream after rc1.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Fabio Estevam -
Jonathan Cameron -
Matti Vaittinen