From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: navneet kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] thermal: of: notify sensor driver on trip updates Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:35:56 -0800 Message-ID: <547CED4C.1050407@nvidia.com> References: <1417050989-25405-1-git-send-email-navneetk@nvidia.com> <1417050989-25405-3-git-send-email-navneetk@nvidia.com> <20141127143236.GD3342@developer> <547CD380.3030707@nvidia.com> <20141201212321.GA4142@developer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141201212321.GA4142@developer> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eduardo Valentin Cc: rui.zhang@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 12/01/2014 01:23 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:45:52PM -0800, navneet kumar wrote: >> Hi Eduardo, >> >> On 11/27/2014 06:32 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>>> Old Signed by an unknown key >>> >>> Hello Navneet, >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:16:29PM -0800, Navneet Kumar wrote: >>>> From: navneet kumar >>>> >>>> some thermal sensor hardwares include logic which >>>> can raise interrupts at certain programmed temperature >>>> thresholds. >>>> >>>> Drivers for such sensors should be able to learn the >>>> appropriate threshold temperatures for interrupts by querying >>>> the thermal framework. >>>> >>>> This change provides a mechanism to allow a sensor driver to >>>> update it's thresholds when userspace changes a trip point >>>> temperature. >>>> >>>> While this behavior may not make sense in thermal zones >>>> with more than one sensor, no such examples exist in >>>> the kernel. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: navneet kumar >>>> --- >>>> drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c | 7 +++++++ >>>> include/linux/thermal.h | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c >>>> index 3d47a0cf3825..3568e4a586dc 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c >>>> @@ -258,6 +258,9 @@ static int of_thermal_set_trip_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int trip, >>>> /* thermal framework should take care of data->mask & (1 << trip) */ >>>> data->trips[trip].temperature = temp; >>>> >>>> + if (data->sops.trip_update) >>>> + data->sops.trip_update(data->sensor_data, trip); >>>> + >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -285,6 +288,9 @@ static int of_thermal_set_trip_hyst(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int trip, >>>> /* thermal framework should take care of data->mask & (1 << trip) */ >>>> data->trips[trip].hysteresis = hyst; >>>> >>>> + if (data->sops.trip_update) >>>> + data->sops.trip_update(data->sensor_data, trip); >>>> + >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -500,6 +506,7 @@ void thermal_zone_of_sensor_unregister(struct device *dev, >>>> >>>> tz->sops.get_temp = NULL; >>>> tz->sops.get_trend = NULL; >>>> + tz->sops.trip_update = NULL; >>>> tz->sensor_data = NULL; >>>> mutex_unlock(&tzd->lock); >>>> } >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/thermal.h b/include/linux/thermal.h >>>> index 58341c56a01f..b93e65815175 100644 >>>> --- a/include/linux/thermal.h >>>> +++ b/include/linux/thermal.h >>>> @@ -292,6 +292,7 @@ struct thermal_genl_event { >>>> struct thermal_of_sensor_ops { >>>> int (*get_temp)(void *, long *); >>>> int (*get_trend)(void *, long *); >>>> + int (*trip_update)(void *, int); >>> >>> First thing I ask you is to update your work on top of my -linus branch, >>> as I already mentioned. Reasoning is that part of the changes you are >>> sending is already there. >> will do. >>> >>> As for this new callback, I am fine with it as long as it is also >>> available for drivers that do not use of-thermal. Once again, of-thermal >>> is not a competitor of thermal core. It will never be. It is not a new >>> thermal API. >> I agree that this callback is not a part of the thermal_core functionality. >> However, when a driver registers directly with the thermal_core (doesn't use >> of-thermal), it 'owns' the set_trip_XX callbacks in the first place; which is >> the sole purpose of using the 'trip_update' callback in of-thermal. >> >> Adding an additional 'update' to the thermal_core ops would be a no-op. right? > > Yes, you are right. Now I understand your point. > > Can we then re-use the .set_trips nomenclature? Sorry, I fail to understand. Are you suggesting to re-use the interface for set_trip 'temp' as well as 'hyst'? If so, is it just to maintain the commonality across thermal_core and of-thermal interfaces? The way i see it, the driver just needs to get some kind of 'update' that 'something' changed with a trip point; and can later query the trips from of-thermal. (Lukasz's patch helps with that). Functionality-wise, using two callbacks seems excessive. But i may be wrong :-) > > Cheers, > >>> >>> That said, it does not make sense to have functionality in of-thermal that >>> do not belong to thermal core. Exceptions are, of course, for helping >>> doing the same operations we already have in thermal core. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Eduardo Valentin >>> >>>> }; >>>> >>>> /* Function declarations */ >>>> -- >>>> 1.8.1.5 >>>> >>> >>> * Unknown Key >>> * 0x7DA4E256 >>> > > * Unknown Key > * 0x7DA4E256 >