Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: qcom: tsens: atomic temperature read with hardware-guided retries

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 5/4/26 11:42 AM, Priyansh Jain wrote:
> 
> On 30-04-2026 09:30 pm, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4/30/26 7:44 AM, Priyansh Jain wrote:
>>> The existing TSENS temperature read logic polls the valid bit and then
>>> reads the temperature register. When temperature reads are triggered
>>> at very short intervals, this can race with hardware updates and allow
>>> the temperature field to be read while it is still being updated.
>>>
>>> In this case, the valid bit may already be asserted even though the
>>> temperature value is transitioning, resulting in an incorrect reading.
>>>
>>> Hardware programming guidelines require the temperature value and the
>>> valid bit to be sampled atomically in the same read transaction. A
>>> reading is considered valid only if the valid bit is observed set in
>>> that same sample.
>>>
>>> The guidelines further specify that software should attempt the
>>> temperature read up to three times to account for transient update
>>> windows. If none of the attempts observe a valid sample, a stable
>>> fallback value must be returned: if the first and second samples match,
>>> the second value is returned; otherwise, if the second and third
>>> samples match, the third value is returned.
>>>
>>> Update the TSENS sensor read logic to implement atomic sampling along
>>> with the recommended retry-and-compare fallback behavior. This removes
>>> the race window and ensures deterministic temperature values in
>>> accordance with hardware requirements.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Priyansh Jain<priyansh.jain@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---


>>> +    ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[field], &status);
>>> +    if (ret)
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +
>>> +    /* VER_0 doesn't have VALID bit */
>>> +    if (tsens_version(priv) == VER_0) {
>>> +        *temp = status;
>>> +        return ret;
>> Ret will always be a '0' here (and in below cases)
> Yes correct it will be '0' , so you are suggesting to return 0 instead of ret ?

Yes, this makes things more obvious

Konrad