Hi Daniel,
On Mon Dec 5, 2022 at 8:39 PM CET, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Amjad,
>
>
> On 05/12/2022 11:41, Amjad Ouled-Ameur wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>> @@ -1161,11 +1197,24 @@ static int mtk_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>
> >>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mt);
> >>>
> >>> - tzdev = devm_thermal_of_zone_register(&pdev->dev, 0, mt,
> >>> - &mtk_thermal_ops);
> >>> - if (IS_ERR(tzdev)) {
> >>> - ret = PTR_ERR(tzdev);
> >>> - goto err_disable_clk_peri_therm;
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < mt->conf->num_sensors + 1; i++) {
> >>> + tz = devm_kmalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tz), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!tz)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + tz->mt = mt;
> >>> + tz->id = i;
> >>> +
> >>> + tzdev = devm_thermal_of_zone_register(&pdev->dev, i, tz, (i == 0) ?
> >>> + &mtk_thermal_ops :
> >>> + &mtk_thermal_sensor_ops);
> >>
> >> Here you use again the aggregation
> > I addressed this concern in V6, could you please take a look and let me
> > know what you think [0].
> >
> > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/5eb0cdc2-e9f9-dd42-bf80-b7dcd8bcc196@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> May I misunderstanding but AFAICS, this patch is setting the
> mtk_thermal_ops if the sensor id is zero. The get_temp is computing the
> max temperature in this ops which is what we don't want to do.
Correct, but I think that is out of scope of this patchset, as the current
driver already uses mtk_thermal_ops for sensor 0. The focus of this patchset
is to add support for the other sensors.
Besides, what do you suggest as a clean implementation if the current one
no longer meets thermal core requirements ?
Regards,
Amjad
>
>
> --
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
