IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
---
[v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml
index 27e9e16e6455..c9586b2fbba4 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ properties:
- description: v1 of TSENS
items:
- enum:
+ - qcom,ipq5018-tsens
- qcom,msm8956-tsens
- qcom,msm8976-tsens
- qcom,qcs404-tsens
--
2.34.1
On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
> ---
> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>
Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
new compatible was required.
Regards,
Sricharan
On 19/09/2023 14:48, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>
>
> On 9/19/2023 6:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/09/2023 09:22, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
>>>> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
>>> have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
>>> added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
>>> new compatible was required.
>>
>> I dud not write about new or old compatible ("compatible" as noun). I
>> wrote that it is not compatible ("compatible" as adjective) with v1.
>>
>
> Ho, in that case, yes it is not compatible with V1 init and features
> because of 'no rpm'. So in that case, should this be documented
> as a separate version of 'V1 without rpm' ?
It should not be mixed with regular v1, just as new entry there. I don't
think fallback is needed - just use SoC specific compatible.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 9/19/2023 6:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 09:22, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
>>> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>>>
>>
>> Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
>> have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
>> added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
>> new compatible was required.
>
> I dud not write about new or old compatible ("compatible" as noun). I
> wrote that it is not compatible ("compatible" as adjective) with v1.
>
Ho, in that case, yes it is not compatible with V1 init and features
because of 'no rpm'. So in that case, should this be documented
as a separate version of 'V1 without rpm' ?
Regards,
Sricharan
On 9/19/2023 6:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 14:48, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/2023 6:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 19/09/2023 09:22, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
>>>>> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
>>>> have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
>>>> added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
>>>> new compatible was required.
>>>
>>> I dud not write about new or old compatible ("compatible" as noun). I
>>> wrote that it is not compatible ("compatible" as adjective) with v1.
>>>
>>
>> Ho, in that case, yes it is not compatible with V1 init and features
>> because of 'no rpm'. So in that case, should this be documented
>> as a separate version of 'V1 without rpm' ?
>
> It should not be mixed with regular v1, just as new entry there. I don't
> think fallback is needed - just use SoC specific compatible.
>
ok, sure, will add in V3.
Regards,
Sricharan
On 19/09/2023 09:22, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
>> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>>
>
> Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
> have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
> added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
> new compatible was required.
I dud not write about new or old compatible ("compatible" as noun). I
wrote that it is not compatible ("compatible" as adjective) with v1.
Best regards,
Krzysztof