+ Thermal maintainers On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 15:20, Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Errata i929 in certain OMAP5/DRA7XX/AM57XX silicon revisions > (SPRZ426D - November 2014 - Revised February 2018 [1]) mentions > unexpected tuning pattern errors. A small failure band may be present > in the tuning range which may be missed by the current algorithm. > Furthermore, the failure bands vary with temperature leading to > different optimum tuning values for different temperatures. > > As suggested in the related Application Report (SPRACA9B - October 2017 > - Revised July 2018 [2]), tuning should be done in two stages. > In stage 1, assign the optimum ratio in the maximum pass window for the > current temperature. In stage 2, if the chosen value is close to the > small failure band, move away from it in the appropriate direction. > > References: > [1] http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprz426 > [2] http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/SPRACA9 > > Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> > Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig | 2 + > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-omap.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig > index 5fa580cec831..d8f984483ab0 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig > @@ -977,6 +977,8 @@ config MMC_SDHCI_XENON > config MMC_SDHCI_OMAP > tristate "TI SDHCI Controller Support" > depends on MMC_SDHCI_PLTFM && OF > + select THERMAL > + select TI_SOC_THERMAL > help > This selects the Secure Digital Host Controller Interface (SDHCI) > support present in TI's DRA7 SOCs. The controller supports > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-omap.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-omap.c > index f588ab679cb0..b75c55011fcb 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-omap.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-omap.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> > #include <linux/sys_soc.h> > +#include <linux/thermal.h> > > #include "sdhci-pltfm.h" > > @@ -286,15 +287,19 @@ static int sdhci_omap_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); > struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); > struct sdhci_omap_host *omap_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); > + struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_dev; > struct device *dev = omap_host->dev; > struct mmc_ios *ios = &mmc->ios; > u32 start_window = 0, max_window = 0; > + bool single_point_failure = false; > bool dcrc_was_enabled = false; > u8 cur_match, prev_match = 0; > u32 length = 0, max_len = 0; > u32 phase_delay = 0; > + int temperature; > int ret = 0; > u32 reg; > + int i; > > /* clock tuning is not needed for upto 52MHz */ > if (ios->clock <= 52000000) > @@ -304,6 +309,16 @@ static int sdhci_omap_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > if (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR50 && !(reg & CAPA2_TSDR50)) > return 0; > > + thermal_dev = thermal_zone_get_zone_by_name("cpu_thermal"); I couldn't find a corresponding call to a put function, like "thermal_zone_put()" or whatever, which made me realize that the thermal zone API is incomplete. Or depending on how you put it, it lacks object reference counting, unless I am missing something. For example, what happens if the thermal zone becomes unregistered between this point and when you call thermal_zone_get_temp() a couple of line below. I assume it's a known problem, but just wanted to point it out. > + if (IS_ERR(thermal_dev)) { > + dev_err(dev, "Unable to get thermal zone for tuning\n"); > + return PTR_ERR(thermal_dev); > + } > + > + ret = thermal_zone_get_temp(thermal_dev, &temperature); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + [...] Anyway, I have applied this for next, thanks! Kind regards Uffe
