Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Introduce additional tsens instances

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>]

On 19.01.2024 20:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:31:06AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/24 00:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> The SC8280XP contains two additional tsens instances, providing among
>>> other things thermal measurements for the GPU.
>>>
>>> Add these and a GPU thermal-zone.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
>>> index febf28356ff8..68b5ac0339a0 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
>>> @@ -4033,6 +4033,28 @@ tsens1: thermal-sensor@c265000 {
>>>   			#thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
>>>   		};
>>> +		tsens2: thermal-sensor@c251000 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2";
>>> +			reg = <0 0x0c251000 0 0x1ff>, /* TM */
>>> +			      <0 0x0c224000 0 0x8>; /* SROT */
>>
>> I've previously called for removing these comments that we've been
>> copypasting around for years and years, and I'm gonna stand by that :P
>>
> 
> I'm not against that idea, but are you requesting that I update the
> patch, removing the comments as well. Or that I send another patch
> removing all of them?

Sending a patch that you immediately fix up is a little besides
the point. But the latter would also be nice, if you could.

> 
>> [...]
>>
>>> +		gpu-thermal {
>>> +			polling-delay-passive = <250>;
>>> +			polling-delay = <1000>;
>>
>> Hm, did tsens only gain support of non-polled reporting with 8450?
>>
>> If not, we should definitely update all the relevant SoCs.
>>
> 
> Are you referring to the fact that 8450 seems to set most*
> polling-delays to 0, which are "valid" delays but would cause
> thermal_zone_device_set_polling() to just cancel the timeout every time?
> 
> We should be able to do that on all platforms with working interrupts,
> no?

That's why I'm asking!

> 
> [*] Some of the zones has a passive timeout of 10?
> 
> 
> That said, as above. Would you like me to fix that now?

Yes, please!

Konrad