From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:59:25 -0300 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] thermal: Add driver for Armada 370/XP SoC thermal management In-Reply-To: <4D68720C2E767A4AA6A8796D42C8EB59C587D8@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <1364225229-2857-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1364225229-2857-2-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <4D68720C2E767A4AA6A8796D42C8EB59C587D8@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <20130326085924.GA2454@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Durgadoss, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:27:24PM +0000, R, Durgadoss wrote: [...] > > +static void armadaxp_init_sensor(struct armada_thermal_priv *priv) > > +{ > > + unsigned long reg; > > + > > + /* ??? */ > > + reg = readl_relaxed(priv->control); > > + reg |= PMU_TDC0_OTF_CAL_MASK; > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > + > > + /* Reference calibration value */ > > + reg &= ~PMU_TDC0_REF_CAL_CNT_MASK; > > + reg |= (0xf1 << PMU_TDC0_REF_CAL_CNT_OFFS); > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > I see these two blocks of code being the same for the below > function as well. Any specific reason for not making this block > as a common function and calling it from both the > _init_sensor functions ? > I think it's more clear if we define one init_sensor function per SoC. The common code is really little and factor that out seems to me like too much modularization. > > + > > + /* Reset the sensor */ > > + reg = readl_relaxed(priv->control); > > + writel((reg | PMU_TDC0_SW_RST_MASK), priv->control); > > + > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > + > > + /* Enable the sensor */ > > + reg = readl_relaxed(priv->sensor); > > + reg &= ~PMU_TM_DISABLE_MASK; > > + writel(reg, priv->sensor); > > +} > > + > > +static void armada370_init_sensor(struct armada_thermal_priv *priv) > > +{ > > + unsigned long reg; > > + > > + /* ??? */ > > + reg = readl_relaxed(priv->control); > > + reg |= PMU_TDC0_OTF_CAL_MASK; > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > + > > + /* Reference calibration value */ > > + reg &= ~PMU_TDC0_REF_CAL_CNT_MASK; > > + reg |= (0xf1 << PMU_TDC0_REF_CAL_CNT_OFFS); > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > + > > + /* ??? */ > > + reg &= ~PMU_TDC0_START_CAL_MASK; > > + writel(reg, priv->control); > > + > > + /* FIXME: Why do we need this delay? */ > > + mdelay(10); > > +} > > + > > +static bool armada_is_valid(struct armada_thermal_priv *priv) > > +{ > > + unsigned long reg = readl_relaxed(priv->sensor); > > + > > + return (reg >> THERMAL_VALID_OFFSET) & THERMAL_VALID_MASK; > > +} > > + > > +static int armada_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, > > + unsigned long *temp) > > +{ > > + struct armada_thermal_priv *priv = thermal->devdata; > > + unsigned long reg; > > + > > + /* Valid check */ > > + if (priv->ops->is_valid && !priv->ops->is_valid(priv)) { > > + dev_err(&thermal->device, > > + "Temperature sensor reading not valid\n"); > > + return -EIO; > > + } > > + > > + reg = (readl_relaxed(priv->sensor) >> THERMAL_TEMP_OFFSET) & > > Can we have the readl_relaxed call as a separate statement ? > Why would we want that? Do you think it'll be more readable? > > + THERMAL_TEMP_MASK; > > + *temp = (3153000000UL - (10000000UL*reg)) / 13825; > > If I substitute 1 for 'reg' I get 227341.7721... > Does this mean the temperature is 227 C ?? > Yes, I guess so. > If you have the info, can you add a comment on what is the > valid range that 'reg' can take ? > No, I don't have the info. I guess that the valid range 'reg' can take are the values that span a temperature between 25 ?C (or lower if it's winter) and when your CPU is on fire :-) > Also, Is the resulting temperature > in MillidegreeCelsius ? If so, please add a comment saying so. > Yes, the resulting temperature is in millidegree celsius, as required by the thermal framework: Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt Thanks for the review! -- Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com