Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:16:52 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Stefan Parvu <sparvu@kronometrix.org>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rasclock (PCF2127 ) Hardware Clock FreeBSD 12.0 Message-ID: <ed5b1a229e9d6bdf40694abd4668b1275c7d0242.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <C32068F6-862A-4863-B055-52621209F7D9@kronometrix.org> References: <41A4CA5C-B487-490F-8A19-2D51F43E1004@kronometrix.org> <95616620-bbaf-dbc3-49eb-3e2562638d49@bunyatech.com.au> <AB510253-52D9-469C-B06E-5EC73C5F188E@kronometrix.org> <fd9991c4e6aaccb812a59ff86c9c8564ebd1d767.camel@freebsd.org> <74E3E782-8481-4B5B-A0AF-A04590C27D6D@kronometrix.org> <790afcb5f0809a89b45982958a85f1539fec05c7.camel@freebsd.org> <36088812-2135-4433-BC49-0BC433EC6767@kronometrix.org> <c52f9d9ab358ac0dc09af411bf97625945579b4e.camel@freebsd.org> <86CC4711-47AC-45C6-B6D3-71C9FFDD4A91@kronometrix.org> <BE321299-8569-4B2E-98FD-FD5210E1B6AF@kronometrix.org> <A9FD7D2B-9382-4EAE-B245-5F4DE643DBB7@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <C93E2C64-6280-464D-AB5F-B1E968690CEF@kronometrix.org> <2ec7d7f63de31065b9cab396c662fe24f0107078.camel@freebsd.org> <BD0BE075-9E69-4CB0-826A-5DF2D160E9B1@kronometrix.org> <d71fc4e3db26242ffa817814d6cd92b8899fc2ab.camel@freebsd.org> <EF94BC84-4B8D-455C-952F-4FD1CC5557CE@kronometrix.org> <2AC05799-7D11-4200-8D16-38E3718470BB@kronometrix.org> <91E26684-07A0-4F03-92BC-8D49359B1358@kronometrix.org> <5F33E59B-7EA5-4B8B-A95A-CD1FB569ACDC@kronometrix.org> <6a39f74088d2984b5426e8585b5f7e864a6766f8.camel@freebsd.org> <571EABD9-364C-4D91-9177-CC25CB382D76@kronometrix.org> <A53C9BE4-B3A7-4F15-808F-AB9846674625@kronometrix.org> <2dd107308cb7fc21bab793218d8e37039dbc108e.camel@freebsd.org> <C32068F6-862A-4863-B055-52621209F7D9@kronometrix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 23:01 +0300, Stefan Parvu wrote: > Sone differences between our systems > > * Im using Rasclock 4.0, you are in 4.2 > I wouldn't expect that to make any difference, it's a PCF2129[A]T chip in both cases (the difference between the AT and T chips is temperature range). > * Im using RBPI3B+, you are in RBPI2 > > Not sure if these really matter but just in case Im mentioning. > > > > > It occurred to me: are you sure you're using the fixed driver? One of > > the problems before the fix was that a read would succeed, but return > > the wrong values. So the status register reads might be getting a > > wrong value and interpretting that as the "battery failed bit is set”. > > One thing that comes to mind: you're using this as a module, but is > > the nxprtc driver already built in to the kernel? I think if it is and > > you added nxprtc_load=YES to loader.conf, it'll load the module but > > then still use the driver already in the kernel. > > huh. Are you saying the nxprtc driver is already built-in the kernel ? > Why ? Shouldn’t that be just a driver what you can load on demand, > if users need ? > I guess not, on arm64. On armv7 it is in the generic kernel. > Yes, I do have under loader.conf nxprtc_load=“YES”. But still some questions > here: > > * if I do not load the driver under loader.conf, nothing works, I cannot see the > clock or use it anyhow > > * how can I make sure there is NO nxprtc within kernel ? Can I see the routines > function calls somehow, if i kldunlod the nxprtc driver ? > > I do believe Im using the right thing after your commit. I can again double check that > I guess if it only works when you load the driver, that's a good sign it's not in the kernel. You can also do 'kldstat' and if it's in the output, it was loaded and is being used. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ed5b1a229e9d6bdf40694abd4668b1275c7d0242.camel>