RE: [PATCH] thermal: intel Quark SoC X1000 DTS thermal driver

[Ong, Boon Leong]

>Just to bring out for discussion, do you think we should put a "safety range"
>for reporting out the critical trip temperature value (mean the value from
>register minus 1 or 2 degree)?
>
>Just wondering if this is needed for the software to have the sufficient
>shutdown time before the HW make a hard power cut off when the
>critical trip point is reached.

I assume that the suggestion is meant for the case where thermal register is
not locked by BIOS. It is not a bad idea to have some protection against
wrong configuration on critical trip point by user.
Looking through the data-sheet in Quark, I could not find an recommended
temperature. So, I propose that we use the same value set by BIOS today
- 105C as the maximum. 

>> +static struct soc_sensor_entry *alloc_soc_dts(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct soc_sensor_entry *aux_entry;
>> +	int err;
>> +	u32 out;
>> +	int wr_mask;
>> +
>> +	aux_entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
>
>Wondering is it possible to use the resource-managed functions (for e.g.
>devm_kzalloc())? This could help the driver looks more neat and clean
>where the resource-managed framework will help you take care all the
>kfree().
>
>Understand that the flow here is to call the thermal_zone_device_register()
>function after this aux_entry allocation.
>
>But thinking would it also working if change the flow to call
>thermal_zone_device_register() function 1st to obtain the
>thermal_zone_device
>then later on perform devm_kzalloc() and assign it back to devdata.
>
Ok, it is worth exploring on this devm_kzalloc() for neatness. 
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/