On 30.01.2025 19:24, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 30/01/2025 11:30, Claudiu Beznea wrote: >> >> >> On 30.01.2025 12:07, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:08:03AM +0200, Claudiu Beznea wrote: >>>> Hi, Daniel, > > [ ... ] > >>>>> Would the IP need some cycles to capture the temperature accurately >>>>> after the >>>>> clock is enabled ? >>>> >>>> There is nothing about this mentioned about this in the HW manual of the >>>> RZ/G3S SoC. The only points mentioned are as described in the driver code: >>>> - wait at least 3us after each IIO channel read >>>> - wait at least 30us after enabling the sensor >>>> - wait at least 50us after setting OE bit in TSU_SM >>>> >>>> For this I chose to have it implemented as proposed. >>> >>> IMO, disabling/enabling the clock between two reads through the pm >>> runtime may >>> not be a good thing, especially if the system enters a thermal situation >>> where >>> it has to mitigate. >>> >>> Without any testing capturing the temperatures and compare between the >>> always-on >>> and on/off, it is hard to say if it is true or not. Up to you to test >>> that or >>> not. If you think it is fine, then let's go with it. >> >> I tested it with and w/o the runtime PM and on/off support (so, everything >> ON from the probe) and the reported temperature values were similar. > > > Did you remove the roundup to 0.5°C ? No, the roundup was present in both tested versions. Thank you, Claudiu > >
