On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:05 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-08-27 05:14:05)
> > Register upper-lower interrupts for each of the two tsens controllers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi | 60 ++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi
> > index 96c0a481f454e..bb763b362c162 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996.dtsi
> > @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@
> >
> > thermal-zones {
> > cpu0-thermal {
> > - polling-delay-passive = <250>;
> > - polling-delay = <1000>;
> > + polling-delay-passive = <0>;
> > + polling-delay = <0>;
>
> Is it really necessary to change the configuration here to be 0 instead
> of some number? Why can't we detect that there's an interrupt and then
> ignore these properties?
AFAICT, the thermal core currently depends on the passive and
polling_delay being set to 0 to avoid setting dispatching polling work
to a workqueue. If we leave the values to set, we'll continue to poll
inspite of an interrupt. See
thermal_core.c:thermal_zone_device_set_polling()
But I agree, the core should detect the presence of an interrupt
property and ignore the polling intervals. I'll see if I can fix this
up later.
Regards,
Amit
