? 2015?08?10? 15:59, Dmitry Torokhov ??:
> Hi Caesar,
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Caesar Wang <wxt at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Dear Dmitry,
>>
>> Thanks your patch.
>>
>> The code looks like fine,but I don't think the TS-ADC will work on rk3288
>> SoC.
> What do you mean? It seems to work when I ran it...
Making a mistake.:-(
>>
>> ? 2015?08?08? 04:59, Dmitry Torokhov ??:
>>> We attempted to signal invalid code by returning -EAGAIN from
>>> rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(), unfortunately the return value was stuffed
>>> directly into the temperature pointer, potentially confusing upper
>>> layers with temperature of -EINVAL.
>>>
>>> Let's split temperature from error/success indicator to avoid such
>>> confusion.
>>>
>>> Also change the way we scan the temperature table to start with the 2nd
>>> element so that we do not need to worry that we may reference out of
>>> bounds element while doing binary search and keep checking that we end
>>> up with 'mid' equal to 0 (since we are looking for the temperature that
>>> would fall into interval between the 'mid' and 'mid - 1') .
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------------
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> b/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> index c89ffb2..93ee307 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ struct rockchip_thermal_data {
>>> #define TSADCV2_AUTO_PERIOD_HT_TIME 50 /* msec */
>>> struct tsadc_table {
>>> - unsigned long code;
>>> + u32 code;
>>> long temp;
>>> };
>>> @@ -164,7 +164,6 @@ static const struct tsadc_table v2_code_table[] = {
>>> {3452, 115000},
>>> {3437, 120000},
>>> {3421, 125000},
>>> - {0, 125000},
>>> };
>>> static u32 rk_tsadcv2_temp_to_code(long temp)
>>> @@ -191,19 +190,21 @@ static u32 rk_tsadcv2_temp_to_code(long temp)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> -static int rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(u32 code)
>>> +static int rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(u32 code, int *temp)
It's wired that can't git-am this patch.
I search the Eduardo'branch[0] for rockchip-thermal.c driver. The
function is "static long rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(u32 code)"
Maybe i'm missing something, I verified this patch on my board but this
fixed.
So you can free add it:
Tested-by: Caesar Wang <wxt at rock-chips.com>
[0]:
url =
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/evalenti/linux-soc-thermal.git
---
Thanks,
Caesar
>>> {
>>> - unsigned int low = 0;
>>> + unsigned int low = 1;
>>> unsigned int high = ARRAY_SIZE(v2_code_table) - 1;
>>> unsigned int mid = (low + high) / 2;
>>> unsigned int num;
>>> unsigned long denom;
>>> - /* Invalid code, return -EAGAIN */
>>> - if (code > TSADCV2_DATA_MASK)
>>> - return -EAGAIN;
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(v2_code_table) < 2);
>>> - while (low <= high && mid) {
>>> + code &= TSADCV2_DATA_MASK;
>>> + if (code < v2_code_table[high].code)
>>> + return -EAGAIN; /* Incorrect reading */
>>> +
>>> + while (low <= high) {
>>> if (code >= v2_code_table[mid].code &&
>>> code < v2_code_table[mid - 1].code)
>>> break;
>>> @@ -223,7 +224,9 @@ static int rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(u32 code)
>>> num = v2_code_table[mid].temp - v2_code_table[mid - 1].temp;
>>> num *= v2_code_table[mid - 1].code - code;
>>> denom = v2_code_table[mid - 1].code - v2_code_table[mid].code;
>>> - return v2_code_table[mid - 1].temp + (num / denom);
>>> + *temp = v2_code_table[mid - 1].temp + (num / denom);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> }
>>> /**
>>> @@ -281,14 +284,9 @@ static int rk_tsadcv2_get_temp(int chn, void __iomem
>>> *regs, int *temp)
>>> {
>>> u32 val;
>>> - /* the A/D value of the channel last conversion need some time */
>>> val = readl_relaxed(regs + TSADCV2_DATA(chn));
>>> - if (val == 0)
>>> - return -EAGAIN;
>>> -
>>
>> if we reserve the above code, that will get the ADC value.
> But if we pass 0 into rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp() it will trigger:
>
>>> + if (code < v2_code_table[high].code)
>>> + return -EAGAIN; /* Incorrect reading */
> and still return -EAGAIN, as it was. There is no behavior change as
> far as I can see.
Yup, that's ok for me.
>>
>>> - *temp = rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(val);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return rk_tsadcv2_code_to_temp(val, temp);
>>> }
>>> static void rk_tsadcv2_tshut_temp(int chn, void __iomem *regs, long
>>> temp)
>>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
>
>
