On 10.05.2024 2:49 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 10/05/2024 12:59, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> A trivial follow-up on the changes introduced in Commit 488164006a28
>> ("thermal/of: Assume polling-delay(-passive) 0 when absent").
>>
>> Should probably wait until v6.9-rc1 so that the patch in question is
>> in the base tree, otherwise TZs will fail to register.
>>
>> FWIW, Compile-tested only (except 8280).
>>
>> To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: cros-qcom-dts-watchers@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Un-drop passive delays. Whether they're useful where they're enabled
>> is a topic for another patchset, as it requires examination on a case-
>> -by-case basis.
>> - Better unify the style (newlines between properties)
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240319-topic-msm-polling-cleanup-v1-0-e0aee1dbcd78@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> So perhaps you can answer the question I have.
>
> Right now, we have non-zero delay values, doesn't this mean the thermal framework driver has a delay between evaluating dT/dt values per
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml
>
> Your commit log implies or my reading of it is, there's no functional change because its currently driven by an IRQ but, is that actually _so_ with non-zero values in the DT?
Yes, tsens irq fires a threshold change notification down the thermal framework
Konrad
