Re: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: sun50i: add thermal driver for h6

[OndÅej Jirman]

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:27:34PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:27:21PM +0200, OndÅej Jirman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:05:15AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:27:39AM +0800, Frank Lee wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:51:56AM +0800, Frank Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > > +struct sun50i_thermal_chip {
> > > > > > > > +     int     sensor_num;
> > > > > > > > +     int     offset;
> > > > > > > > +     int     scale;
> > > > > > > > +     int     ft_deviation;
> > > > > > > > +     int     temp_calib_base;
> > > > > > > > +     int     temp_data_base;
> > > > > > > > +     int     (*enable)(struct tsens_device *tmdev);
> > > > > > > > +     int     (*disable)(struct tsens_device *tmdev);
> > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not super fond of having a lot of quirks that are not needed. If
> > > > > > > we ever need those quirks when adding support for a new SoC, then
> > > > > > > yeah, we should totally have some, but only when and if it's needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise, the driver is more complicated for no particular reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is unavoidable because of the difference in soc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, but this isn't my point.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that at this time of the driver development, we don't know
> > > > > what is going to be needed to support all of those SoCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the parameters you added might not be needed, some parameters
> > > > > might be missing, we don't know. So let's keep it simple for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static int tsens_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > +     struct tsens_device *tmdev;
> > > > > > > > +     struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > > > > > +     int ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +     tmdev = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*tmdev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > > > +     if (!tmdev)
> > > > > > > > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +     tmdev->dev = dev;
> > > > > > > > +     tmdev->chip = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (!tmdev->chip)
> > > > > > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +     ret = tsens_init(tmdev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +     ret = tsens_register(tmdev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +     ret = tmdev->chip->enable(tmdev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +     platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tmdev);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your registration should be the very last thing you do. Otherwise, you
> > > > > > > have a small window where the get_temp callback can be called, but the
> > > > > > > driver will not be functional yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. Anyway, ths data qcquisition is ms level.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's kind of irrelevant. There's nothing preventing get_temp to be
> > > > > called right away.
> > > >
> > > > As OndÅej said,
> > > >
> > > > Registration after enabling will lead to call tz update on non-registered tz
> > > > from an interrupt handler.
> > >
> > > I'm probably missing something but you're not using the interrupts, so
> > > how could an interrupt handler call it?
> > >
> > > Also, other drivers seem to be doing that just fine (mtk_thermal for
> > > example), so surely there's a way?
> >
> > Last version is using the interrupts.
> >
> > Drivers do it in various ways. For example imx_thermal (and others like
> > hisi_thermal) does it the suggested way. It enables interrupts after thermal
> > zone registration, so that IRQ handler doesn't get invoked before the tzd is
> > registered.
> 
> Enabling the interrupts after the registration makes sense, yes, but
> filling the device private pointer with the private structure,
> enabling the clocks, setting up the controller and so on can be done
> before.

I agree. 

	o.

> Maxime
> 
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com



> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel