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

Priyansh Jain
2026-05-04T10:34:23Z

On 04-05-2026 03:29 pm, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 5/4/26 11:42 AM, Priyansh Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 30-04-2026 09:21 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>
>>>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>>>> @@ -125,8 +128,7 @@ static const struct reg_field tsens_v2_regfields[MAX_REGFIELDS] = {
>>>>       [WDOG_BARK_COUNT]  = REG_FIELD(TM_WDOG_LOG_OFF,             0,  7),
>>>>         /* Sn_STATUS */
>>>> -    REG_FIELD_FOR_EACH_SENSOR16(LAST_TEMP,       TM_Sn_STATUS_OFF,  0,  11),
>>>> -    REG_FIELD_FOR_EACH_SENSOR16(VALID,           TM_Sn_STATUS_OFF, 21,  21),
>>>> +    REG_FIELD_FOR_EACH_SENSOR16(LAST_TEMP,       TM_Sn_STATUS_OFF,  0,  21),
>>> ..this change feels rather odd - the existing regfields seem like a good
>>> place to handle this register map difference
>> This change is required to ensure that both the VALID bit and LAST_TEMP
>> are read as part of a single transaction, in order to avoid a race condition where
>> the VALID bit may already be asserted while the temperature value is still transitioning,
>> potentially resulting in an incorrect reading. If needed, I can rename the field from
>> LAST_TEMP to something that more clearly reflects a combined representation
>> of the temperature value and the VALID bit.
>>
>> Let me know you thoughts on this.
>
> Hm, I somehow managed to skip the connection between the two..
>
> I think we could retain the current (pretty good) containment of all
> register differences between the versions as-is, with something like
> this diff:
>
> - ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[field], &status);
> + /* Fields within the STATUS register are only valid if read atomically */
> + ret = regmap_read(priv->rf[field].reg, &status);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> and then falling back to the prior definitions of the VALID mask etc.

Thanks for this feedback , this seems correct approach, i will update as
per the suggestion provided

Thanks,
Priyansh

>
> Konrad