On 1/19/22 4:33 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
On 1/20/22 3:40 AM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: TZ update trigger (%d mC)\n",
>> + hw_id, __func__, temp);
>> + thermal_zone_device_update(s->tzd, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
>> + } else {
>> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: TZ update trigger (%d mC) skipped as zone disabled\n",
>
> Hmm. I don't like the fact that these messages won't be visible to
> users in dmesg unless they're debugging. This change puts the SoC in a
> potentially unsafe state. Perhaps we should print a ratelimited
> message in the logs that we're operating outside safety limits?
That seems fine, I'll change to dev_info_ratelimited and make the message
a bit scarier.
>
>> + hw_id, __func__, temp);
>> + }
>> } else {
>> - dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: no violation: %d\n",
>> - hw_id, __func__, temp);
>> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: no violation: %d\n", hw_id, __func__, temp);
>
> Get rid of this hunk, it is unrelated to the above change.
Will do.
>
>> }
>>
>> if (tsens_version(priv) < VER_0_1) {
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
