Hey Diederik and Alexey,
On 2024-05-06 14:28, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Monday, 6 May 2024 11:36:33 CEST Alexey Charkov wrote:
This enables the on-chip thermal monitoring sensor (TSADC) on all
RK3588(s) boards that don't have it enabled yet. It provides
temperature
monitoring for the SoC and emergency thermal shutdowns, and is thus
important to have in place before CPU DVFS is enabled, as high CPU
operating performance points can overheat the chip quickly in the
absence of thermal management.
Signed-off-by: Alexey Charkov <alchark@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts | 4
++++
8 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts index
b8e15b76a8a6..21e96c212dd8 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts
@@ -742,6 +742,10 @@ regulator-state-mem {
};
};
+&tsadc {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
&uart2 {
pinctrl-0 = <&uart2m0_xfer>;
status = "okay";
I built a kernel with v3 of your patch set and someone tested it on a
ROCK 5B
'for me' and it had the following line in dmesg:
rockchip-thermal fec00000.tsadc: Missing rockchip,grf property
I'm guessing that turned up due to enabling tsadc, but (also) in v4 I
didn't
see a change wrt "rockchip,grf".
Should that be done? (asking; I don't know)
Nice catch! As it turns out, having "rockchip,grf" defined isn't
needed for the RK3588, so this warning is of somewhat false nature.
In more detail, having "rockchip,grf" defined is actually required
only for some Rockchip SoCs, e.g. RK356x.
I can get this covered in my soon-to-be-submitted device-tree cleanup
patch series, if Alexey is fine with that.
