Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add critical interrupt support

[Amit Kucheria]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:44 PM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 30 Jan 05:27 PST 2020, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> > TSENS IP v2.x adds critical threshold interrupt support for each sensor
> > in addition to the upper/lower threshold interrupt. Add support in the
> > driver.
> >
> > While the critical interrupts themselves aren't currently used by Linux,
> > the HW line is also used by the TSENS watchdog. So this patch acts as
> > infrastructure to enable watchdog functionality for the TSENS IP.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Please do provide a changelog when respinning your patches.
>
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v2.c     |   8 +-
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c        |  24 +++++-
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h        |  71 ++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> [..]
> > +irqreturn_t tsens_critical_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > +     struct tsens_priv *priv = data;
> > +     struct tsens_irq_data d;
> > +     unsigned long flags;
> > +     int temp, ret, i;
> > +
> > +     for (i = 0; i < priv->num_sensors; i++) {
> > +             const struct tsens_sensor *s = &priv->sensor[i];
> > +             u32 hw_id = s->hw_id;
> > +
> > +             if (IS_ERR(s->tzd))
> > +                     continue;
> > +             if (!tsens_threshold_violated(priv, hw_id, &d))
> > +                     continue;
> > +             ret = get_temp_tsens_valid(s, &temp);
> > +             if (ret) {
> > +                     dev_err(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: error reading sensor\n", hw_id, __func__);
> > +                     continue;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->crit_lock, flags);
> > +
>
> I see that I failed to follow up on the discussion on the previous
> revision. The handler is called from a single thread, so you don't need
> a lock to protect the irq handler from itself.

Makes sense now. Will fix.

Thanks for the review.

Regards,
Amit