Hi Eduardo, Thanks for your response. On 29 November 2016 01:24, Eduardo Valentin, wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:56:39PM +0100, Steve Twiss wrote: > > +config DA9062_THERMAL > > + tristate "DA9062/DA9061 Dialog Semiconductor thermal driver" > > + depends on MFD_DA9062 > > + depends on OF > > + help > > + Enable this for the Dialog Semiconductor thermal sensor driver. > > + This will report PMIC junction over-temperature for one thermal trip > > + zone. > > + Compatible with the DA9062 and DA9061 PMICs. > > Is there any hardware documentation available for this chip that can be > pointed out? As part of this patch set, I added a link to the the datasheet into the top-level MFD component of the device tree binding: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9426791/ You can get all the information for DA9062 and DA9061 from the patch update in that link. [...] > > + /* Now read E_TEMP again: it is acting like a status bit. > > + * If over-temperature, then this status will be true. > > + * If not over-temperature, this status will be false. > > + */ > > + ret = regmap_read(thermal->hw->regmap, > > + DA9062AA_EVENT_B, > > + &val); > > + if (ret < 0) { > > + dev_err(thermal->dev, > > + "Cannot check the TJUNC temperature status\n"); > > + goto err_enable_irq; > > + } else { > > + if (val & DA9062AA_E_TEMP_MASK) { > > + mutex_lock(&thermal->lock); > > + thermal->temperature = DA9062_MILLI_CELSIUS(125); > > Does this mean that the chip temperature is above or equal to 125C, is > this really a safe temperature to keep it running? There is more information in the datasheet under the section titles "Junction temperature supervision". The value of 125 degC comes from the "warning temperature threshold" and the event is triggered when "the junction temperature rises above the first threshold (TEMP_WARN), the event E_TEMP is asserted". This suggests strictly greater than 125. However, there is no way for the chip to know the exact temperature. The mechanism is interrupt based and triggering only happens when the temperature rises above the threshold level. [...] > > +static irqreturn_t da9062_thermal_irq_handler(int irq, void *data) > > +{ > > + struct da9062_thermal *thermal = data; > > + > > + disable_irq_nosync(thermal->irq); > > + schedule_delayed_work(&thermal->work, 0); > > Can you please elaborate a little on why you have an one shot threaded IRQ > handler that is only disabling the IRQ then, scheduling a work with delay of 0? > > To my understanding, this is exactly what you get when you run your > threaded IRQ handler, when you configure it as one shot. > > Have you tried simply handling the same work done in your workqueue > handler in your threaded IRQ? That should simplify your code and get the > same result you are expecting. > > If you are not getting the IRQ disabled on the threaded IRQ when > configured as one shot, something else seams to be broken. Over-temperature triggering is event based: an interrupt happens when the temperature rises above 125 degC. However, this event based system changes into a polling operation to detect when the temperature falls below the threshold level again. This asymmetry in the chip's behaviour is the reasoning behind why I am not using the thermal core's built-in polling functionality. When over-temperature is reached, the interrupt from the DA9061/2 will be repeatedly triggered. The IRQ is disabled when the first over-temperature event happens and the status bit is polled using the work-queue until it becomes false. After that, the IRQ is re-enabled again so a new critical temperature event can be detected. After the interrupt has happened, event bit for the interrupt switches into a status bit and is used for polling and detecting when the temperature drops below the threshold. https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/20/372 https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/20/433 [...] > > + thermal->zone = thermal_zone_device_register(thermal->config->name, > > + 1, 0, thermal, > > + &da9062_thermal_ops, NULL, 0, > > + 0); > > Did you try using of-thermal? > > So you would avoid having specific DT properties for something that > there is already a defined property? In an earlier RFC, I examined a work-around by hijacking and toggling the thermal core's built-in polling function when I needed to poll the temperature through get_temp(). However I thought this was quite dangerous, since it would not be using a formal thermal core interface. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9387241/ [...] > > + ret = request_threaded_irq(thermal->irq, NULL, > > + da9062_thermal_irq_handler, > > + IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT, > > + "THERMAL", thermal); > > How about using the devm_ version? I wanted to explicitly free_irq() before calling thermal_zone_device_unregister() in the remove function. Regards, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
