On 14/09/2023 10:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/09/2023 15:34, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
>> It seems that thermal in Exynos 4210 is broken without this, as it will
>> never decrease cooling after increasing it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2: Just uploaded separately from all the thermal: exynos:
>> patches with a shorter recipient list, no change otherwise.
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos4210.dtsi | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos4210.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos4210.dtsi
>> index 0e27c3375e2e..aae185b7f91c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos4210.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos4210.dtsi
>> @@ -391,8 +391,14 @@ &cpu_alert2 {
>> };
>>
>> &cpu_thermal {
>> - polling-delay-passive = <0>;
>> - polling-delay = <0>;
>> + /* Exynos 4210 supports thermal interrupts, but only for the rising threshold.
>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>
> It seems my previous comments were not fully addressed. Maybe my
> feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you just forgot to apply it.
> Please go back to the previous discussion and either implement all
> requested changes or keep discussing them.
>
> I fixed it up and applied.
>
BTW, line wrapping was also not correct :/ Please follow coding style -
it is still 80, unless exception makes things readable. There is no need
for exception here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
