From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matthias.bgg@gmail.com (Matthias Brugger) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:05:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: Add Mediatek thermal controller support In-Reply-To: References: <1448883753-19068-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1448883753-19068-3-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20151217193332.GB7999@localhost.localdomain> <20160104141940.GI13058@pengutronix.de> <20160119072917.GA13237@pengutronix.de> <1454295246.22151.6.camel@mtksdaap41> Message-ID: <56C4A875.6080908@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 15/02/16 03:14, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote: >> Hi Eduardo, Sascha, >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Eddie Huang wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 15:29 +0800, Sascha Hauer wrote: >>>> Eduardo, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:19:40PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: >>>>> Hi Eduardo, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That should remove the policy of computing the maximum from this driver. >>>>>> Please have a look on the work being done [1] to add grouping and >>>>>> aggregation of thermal zones. With that in place, you should be a matter >>>>>> of configuring the grouping and selecting max as the aggregation function, >>>>>> from the thermal core, instead in the driver. Which should give the >>>>>> system engineer, more flexibility to compose whatever policy based on >>>>>> the exposed sensors. >>>>> >>>>> I think the aggregation of thermal zones is quite useful when it comes >>>>> to putting different chips together to a system. I am not so sure how >>>>> useful it is to expose different thermal zones of a single SoC to the >>>>> device tree. >>>>> Currently the only control knob we have is the CPU frequency. When any >>>>> of the sensors on the SoC gets too hot then the only thing we can do is >>>>> to decrease the CPU frequency. This does not leave much space for >>>>> configuration in the device tree. >>>>> What I need to be able is to attach multiple sensors to one thermal >>>>> zone. The aggregation patch series only partly solves that and I think >>>>> is inconsistent, but I commented on the series directly. >>>> >>>> Any input on this? I really like to get this driver upstream as it is >>>> currently blocking other Mediatek drivers. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Eduardo, >>> >>> Do you have any comment about Sascha's response ? We really hope get >>> your comment since Mediatek thermal driver already reviewed in public >>> over half years, and we have other patches [0] [1] depend on thermal >>> driver. >>> >>> [0]: >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-December/394084.html >>> [1]: >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/401055.html >> >> Friendly ping on the Mediatek thermal driver. >> The "EFUSE" dependency has now landed in v4.5-rc4. > > Actually, it landed in char-misc-next, not v4.5-rc4. > >> So, AFAICT, the only thing left that may be blocking landing Mediatek >> thermal driver is resolution of this discussion about thermal zones. >> Can we kindly resolve this soon so we have a chance to land it in v4.6. >> I think the problem is, that Eduardo wants to see the hierachical thermal zones being used. But there is still a discussion ongoing [1]. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7699971/