On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:37 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 2025-01-24 11:25, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:06 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2025-01-24 09:33, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:26 AM Alexander Shiyan
> >> > <eagle.alexander923@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no pinctrl "gpio" and "otpout" (probably designed as
> >> >> "output")
> >> >> handling in the tsadc driver.
> >> >> Let's use proper binding "default" and "sleep".
> >> >
> >> > This looks reasonable, however I've tried it on my Radxa Rock 5C and
> >> > the driver still doesn't claim GPIO0 RK_PA1 even with this change. As
> >> > a result, a simulated thermal runaway condition (I've changed the
> >> > tshut temperature to 65000 and tshut mode to 1) doesn't trigger a PMIC
> >> > reset, even though a direct `gpioset 0 1=0` does.
> >> >
> >> > Are any additional changes needed to the driver itself?
> >>
> >> I've been digging through this patch the whole TSADC/OTP thing in the
> >> last couple of hours, and AFAIK some parts of the upstream driver are
> >> still missing, in comparison with the downstream driver.
> >>
> >> I've got some small suggestions for the patch itself, but the issue
> >> you observed is obviously of higher priority, and I've singled it out
> >> as well while digging through the code.
> >>
> >> Could you, please, try the patch below quickly, to see is it going to
> >> fix the issue you observed? I've got some "IRL stuff" to take care of
> >> today, so I can't test it myself, and it would be great to know is it
> >> the right path to the proper fix.
> >>
> >> diff --git i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
> >> w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
> >> index f551df48eef9..62f0e14a8d98 100644
> >> --- i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
> >> +++ w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
> >> @@ -1568,6 +1568,11 @@ static int rockchip_thermal_probe(struct
> >> platform_device *pdev)
> >> thermal->chip->initialize(thermal->grf, thermal->regs,
> >> thermal->tshut_polarity);
> >>
> >> + if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_GPIO)
> >> + pinctrl_select_default_state(dev);
> >> + else
> >> + pinctrl_select_sleep_state(dev);
> >
> > I believe no 'else' block is needed here, because if tshut_mode is not
> > TSHUT_MODE_GPIO then the TSADC doesn't use this pin at all, so there's
> > no reason for the driver to mess with its pinctrl state. I'd rather
> > put a mirroring block to put the pin back to its 'sleep' state in the
> > removal function for the TSHUT_MODE_GPIO case.
>
> You're right, but the "else block" is what the downstream driver does,
Does it though? It only handles the TSHUT_MODE_GPIO case as far as I
can tell (or TSHUT_MODE_OTP in downstream driver lingo) [1]
[1]
https://github.com/radxa/kernel/blob/edb3eeeaa4643ecac6f4185d6d391c574735fca1/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c#L2564
> so I think it's better to simply stay on the safe side and follow that
> logic in the upstream driver. Is it really needed? Perhaps not, but
> it also shouldn't hurt.
>
> > Will try and revert.
>
> Awesome, thanks!
>
> > P.S. Just looked at the downstream driver, and it actually calls
> > TSHUT_MODE_GPIO TSHUT_MODE_OTP instead, so it seems that "otpout" was
> > not a typo in the first place. So maybe the right approach here is not
> > to change the device tree but rather fix the "gpio" / "otpout" pinctrl
> > state handling in the driver.
>
> Indeed, "otpout" wasn't a typo, and I've already addressed that in my
> comments to Alexander's patch. Will send that response a bit later.
>
> I think it's actually better to accept the approach in Alexander's
> patch, because the whole thing applies to other Rockchip SoCs as well,
> not just to the RK3588(S).
Anyway, I've just tried it after including the changes below, and
while /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/pinctrl-handles shows the expected
pinctrls under tsadc, the driver still doesn't seem to be triggering a
PMIC reset. Weird. Any thoughts welcome.
