On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 09:24 +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote:

Am Dienstag, 9. September 2014, 21:14:18 schrieb edubezval at gmail.com:

quoted

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Zhang Rui [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 11:09 -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:

quoted

Hello

On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:35:31PM +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote:

quoted

Am Dienstag, 9. September 2014, 10:27:17 schrieb Zhang Rui:

quoted

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 09:02 +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:

quoted

? 2014?09?03? 16:07, Heiko St?bner ??:

quoted

Am Mittwoch, 3. September 2014, 10:10:37 schrieb Caesar Wang:

quoted

This add the necessary binding documentation for the thermal
found on Rockchip SoCs

Signed-off-by: zhaoyifeng <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <redacted>
---

  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.txt | 20

++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

  create mode 100644

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.txt

diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.txt
new
file
mode 100644
index 0000000..1ed4d4c

--- /dev/null
+++

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.tx
t

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+* Temperature Sensor ADC (TSADC) on rockchip SoCs
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: "rockchip,rk3288-tsadc"
+- reg: physical base address of the controller and length of

memory
mapped
+       region.
+- interrupts: The interrupt number to the cpu. The interrupt
specifier
format +           depends on the interrupt controller.
+- clocks: Must contain an entry for each entry in clock-names.
+- clock-names: Shall be "tsadc" for the converter-clock, and
"apb_pclk" for +            the peripheral clock.

You're using the passive-temp, critical-temp and force-shut-temp
properties in your driver without declaring them here.

frankly,the about are need be declared. but  there are 4 types[0]
for
trip in thermal framework,
there is no force-shut for me. So I want to change it three
additional
properties in [PATCH V4 4/4],


[0]
{

     THERMAL_TRIP_CRITICAL,
     THERMAL_TRIP_HOT,
     THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE,
     THERMAL_TRIP_ACTIVE,

}

this sounds reasonable to me.

quoted

quoted

But more importantly, please use the generic trip-points for
this. I
guess it shouldn't be a problem to introduce a "forced-shutdown"
trippoint [0] for the additional trip-point you have - thermal
maintainers, please shout if I'm wrong :-)

what is the difference between a critical trip point and a
"forced-shutdown" trip point?
Thermal core will do a shutdown in case the critical trip point is
triggered.

The forced-shutdown is where the thermal controller is supposed to also
do a>> 

Currently, there is no discrimination between hardware configured /
triggered thermal shutdown and software detected / triggered thermal
shutdown. One way to implement it though is to reuse the critical trip
type. Even if you use more than one trip type it is doable, it will
depend on the priorities you give to software triggered and hardware
triggered.

quoted

shutdown in hardware. As you said the thermal core will also shutdown
at the critical trip point, I guess we could map Caesar's value like

trip-point          tsadc
critical            forced-shutdown (the 120 degrees in patch 4)

hot                 critical (the 100 degrees)
...

In the case we are planing to expand the trip type range, adding one
specific to hardware configurable shutdown makes sense to me too.

hmmm, why? you don't want an orderly shutdown? I still do not understand
why we need a hardware shutdown trip point.
Say, if we expect the system to be shutdown at 100C, I don't think we
have a chance to trigger the hardware shutdown trip point.
Further more, if my understanding is right, thermal core won't do
anything for the hardware shutdown trip point because the system will be
shutdown automatically, right? If this is true, why bother introducing
this to thermal core?

Some ICs allow configuring the temperature when the shutdown will
happen. That is, you setup in registers the thermal shutdown
threshold, and one of the output pin of the IC is wired to, say, the
processor reset pin. Some other ICs have the threshold hardwired, and
cannot be configured.

Those options are a last chance to avoid processors to burn, in case
software really gets stuck at high temperatures.

The only thing that the thermal driver would need to worry is the
configuration step, that is, writing the value to the registers. In
the case the thermal core would have a specific trip type for such
case, the core itself would not do anything, except allowing designing
a thermal zone with hardware shutdown trips. And thus the thermal
driver would do the configuration.


Currently, the way I see to implement this is to interpret critical
trips as the threshold to be configured at the IC registers. That is,
reusing critical trips as orderly power down and as the hardware
shutdown threshold.

which was what I also meant to express above [but seemingly failed to do 
properly :-) ].

Critical is specified as "Hardware not reliable", so I'd think it wouldn't 
matter how the hw is shut down (orderly/unorderly) as long as its done.

Hmmm,

As what we want is to make thermal driver have a chance to configure the
hardware shutdown registers, I'm thinking if we can do this without
representing the hardware shutdown value as a trip point.
Say,
1. parse DT, and get the hardware shutdown temperature value, and store
it somewhere, e.g. struct __thermal_zone.
2. introduce a new parameter, int (*set_hardware_trip)(void *, long *),
in thermal_zone_of_sensor_register().
3. invoke set_hard_trip(tz, hardware_shutdown_temperature_value) in
thermal_zone_of_sensor_register().

thanks,
rui