Re: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: Add Mediatek thermal controller support

Eddie Huang
2016-02-01T02:54:13Z

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

Regards,
Eddie