Re: [PATCH 02/25] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove the multiple sensors support

[Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:48:21AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:07:08PM -0700, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03:40PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 17/10/2017 20:25, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > >> On 17/10/2017 05:54, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:02:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > >>>> By essence, the tsensor does not really support multiple sensor at the same
> > > >>>> time. It allows to set a sensor and use it to get the temperature, another
> > > >>>> sensor could be switched but with a delay of 3-5ms. It is difficult to read
> > > >>>> simultaneously several sensors without a big delay.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Is 3-5 ms enough to loose an event? Is this really a problem?
> > > >>
> > > >> There are several aspects:
> > > >>
> > > >>  - the multiple sensors is not needed here
> > > > 
> > > > Well, that is debatable, I cannot really agree or disagree with the
> > > > above statement without understanding the use cases and most important,
> > > > the location of each sensor. What is the location of each sensor?
> > > > 
> > > >>
> > > >>  - the temperature controller is not designed to read several sensors at
> > > >> the same time, we switch the sensor and that clears some internal
> > > >> buffers and re-init the controller
> > > > 
> > > > Which is still very helpful in case you have multiple hotspots that you
> > > > want to track and they are exposed on different workloads. Sacrificing
> > > > the availability of sensors is something needs a better justification
> > > > other than "current code uses only one".
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>
> > > >>  - some boards can take 40°C in 1 sec, the temperature increase is
> > > >> insanely fast and reading several sensors add an extra 15ms.
> > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ok... What is the difference in update rate with and without the switch
> > > > of sensors? With the above worst case, you have about 4/6 mC/ms. Can
> > > > your tsensor support that resolution for a single sensor? What is the
> > > > maximum resolution a tsensor can support? What is the penalty added with
> > > > switch?
> > > > 
> > > > Based on this data, and the above 3-5ms, that  means you would miss about
> > > > ~ 3 - 4 mC while switching ( assuming tsensor can really achieve the
> > > > above rate of change: 5ms * 4/6 mC /ms). Are you sure that is
> > > > enough justification to drop three extra sensors?
> > > 
> > > Ok if I refer to the documentation the rate is 0.768 ms with the current
> > > configuration.
> > > 
> > > The driver is currently bogus: register overwritten, bouncing interrupt,
> > > unneeded lock, ... So the proposition was to remove the multiple sensors
> > > support, clean the driver, and re-introduce it if there is a need.
> > > 
> > > If I remember correctly Leo, author of the driver, agreed on this. Leo ?
> > > 
> > > Note, I'm not strongly against multiple sensors support in the driver if
> > > you think it is convenient but it is much simpler to remove the current
> > > code as it is not used and put it back on top of a sane foundation
> > > instead of circumventing that on the existing code.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > I am also fine with the above strategy, as long as you are sure you are
> > not breaking anyone (specially userspace). Also, it would be good to get
> > a reviewed-by from hisilicon just to confirm (Leo?).
> 
> Sorry I missed to reply this patch. And yes, I have tested and
> reviewed it at my side:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> 
> P.s. I am working for Linaro; I am continously co-working with
> Hisilicon to maintain this driver due it's important for Hikey/Hikey960
> two boards stability; this driver also is important for our daily
> profiling for power and performance. Eduardo, so please let us know if
> you still need ack from Hisilicon engineer.


Yeah, I think adding your Reviewed-by and Kevin's is enough for this
series to go through. As I asked Daniel already, only few minor stuff
needs to be fixed along with the addition of the reviewed-by's.

> 
> > Besides, once you get his reviewed-by, and add it to the patches,
> > can you please resend the series with the minor issues I
> > mentioned (a few minor checkpatch issues and one compilation warn that
> > is added to the driver after the series is applied).
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > >  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> > > 
> > > Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> > > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> > > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
> > >