Hello Stephen,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:50:48PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 08/06/2014 04:25 AM, Mikko Perttunen wrote:

quoted

This adds support for the Tegra SOCTHERM thermal sensing and management
system found in the Tegra124 system-on-chip. This initial driver supports
temperature polling for four thermal zones.

Since both the Tegra DT patches and this driver all rely on a new header 
added by patch 1/4, I guess this whole series needs to be applied in one 
branch. I think it makes sense to apply it to the Tegra since it's 
likely to have more conflicts there and fewer in the thermal 
maintainer's tree. It can be applied in a topic branch that can be 
merged into the thermal maintainer's tree if required to resolve 
conflicts there.

I agree with you here. The conflicts on thermal side should be mostly on
Kconfigs and Makefiles. But the device tree part should not be hard to
deal with too though.

Rui, Eduardo, do you agree?

Once we get it properly reviewed and acked, then I am not against it
going via tegra tree, no.

Cheers,

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/tegra_soctherm.c b/drivers/thermal/tegra_soctherm.c

quoted

+static struct of_device_id tegra_soctherm_of_match[] = {
+	{ .compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-soctherm" },
+	{ },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tegra_soctherm_of_match);
+
+static int thermctl_temp_offsets[] = {
+	SENSOR_TEMP1, SENSOR_TEMP2, SENSOR_TEMP1, SENSOR_TEMP2
+};
+
+static int thermctl_temp_shifts[] = {
+	16, 16, 0, 0
+};

Can any/all of those be const?

I don't pretend to know anything about the soctherm HW, but I see no 
gross issues in the code structure, so,
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>