by Brian Masney

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:58:54PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:59 PM Brian Masney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:40:16PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > How well does cpufreq work on 8974? I haven't looked at it yet but
> > > we'll need it for thermal throttling.
> >
> > I'm not sure how to tell if the frequency is dynamically changed during
> > runtime on arm. x86-64 shows this information in /proc/cpuinfo. Here's
> > the /proc/cpuinfo on the Nexus 5:
>
> Nah. /proc/cpuinfo won't show what we need.
>
> Try the following:
>
> $ grep "" /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy?/*
>
> More specifically, the following files have the information you need.
> Run watch -n1 on them.
>
> $ grep "" /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy?/scaling_*_freq

There's no cpufreq directory on msm8974:

# ls -1 /sys/devices/system/cpu/
cpu0
cpu1
cpu2
cpu3
cpuidle
hotplug
isolated
kernel_max
modalias
offline
online
possible
power
present
smt
uevent

I'm using qcom_defconfig.

Brian

2019-07-29 12:12:58

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add interrupt support

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the thorough review.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:39 AM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-07-25 15:18:50)
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > index 13a875b99094..f94ef79c37bc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,22 @@
> > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > #include "tsens.h"
> >
> > +/* IRQ state, mask and clear */
> > +struct tsens_irq_data {
> > + u32 up_viol;
>
> Is viol a violation? Maybe some kernel doc would be useful here.

Will fix.

> > + int up_thresh;
> > + u32 up_irq_mask;
> > + u32 up_irq_clear;
> > + u32 low_viol;
> > + int low_thresh;
> > + u32 low_irq_mask;
> > + u32 low_irq_clear;
> > + u32 crit_viol;
> > + u32 crit_thresh;
> > + u32 crit_irq_mask;
> > + u32 crit_irq_clear;
> > +};
> > +
> > char *qfprom_read(struct device *dev, const char *cname)
> > {
> > struct nvmem_cell *cell;
> > @@ -65,6 +81,18 @@ void compute_intercept_slope(struct tsens_priv *priv, u32 *p1,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static inline u32 degc_to_code(int degc, const struct tsens_sensor *sensor)
> > +{
> > + u32 code = (degc * sensor->slope + sensor->offset) / SLOPE_FACTOR;
>
> This can't overflow 32-bits with the multiply and add?

Most of the public HW doesn't have any calibration data and the
defaults values seem to avoid the problem. I'll check again.

Perhaps best to just declare this as u64 and then clamp below?

> > +
> > + if (code > THRESHOLD_MAX_ADC_CODE)
> > + code = THRESHOLD_MAX_ADC_CODE;
> > + else if (code < THRESHOLD_MIN_ADC_CODE)
> > + code = THRESHOLD_MIN_ADC_CODE;
>
> Looks like
>
> return clamp(code, THRESHOLD_MIN_ADC_CODE, THRESHOLD_MAX_ADC_CODE);

clamp_val works better with the #defines, but yes. Will fix.

> > + pr_debug("%s: raw_code: 0x%x, degc:%d\n", __func__, code, degc);
> > + return code;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int code_to_degc(u32 adc_code, const struct tsens_sensor *s)
> > {
> > int degc, num, den;
> > @@ -106,6 +134,363 @@ static int tsens_hw_to_mC(char *str, struct tsens_sensor *s, int field, int temp
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * tsens_mC_to_hw - Return correct value to be written to threshold
> > + * registers, whether in ADC code or deciCelsius depending on IP version
> > + */
> > +static int tsens_mC_to_hw(struct tsens_sensor *s, int temp)
> > +{
> > + struct tsens_priv *priv = s->priv;
> > +
> > + if (priv->feat->adc) {
> > + /* milli to C to adc code */
> > + return degc_to_code(temp / 1000, s);
> > + } else {
> > + /* milli to deci C */
> > + return (temp / 100);
> > + }
>
> Drop the else and just return without parenthesis.

Will fix.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned int tsens_ver(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + return priv->feat->ver_major;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u32 irq_mask(u32 hw_id)
>
> Is this used?

Removed.

> > +{
> > + return 1 << hw_id;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * tsens_set_interrupt_v1 - Disable an interrupt (enable = false)
> > + * Re-enable an interrupt (enable = true)
> > + */
> > +static void tsens_set_interrupt_v1(struct tsens_priv *priv, const struct tsens_irq_data d,
> > + u32 hw_id, enum tsens_irq_type irq_type, bool enable)
> > +{
> > + if (enable) {
> > + switch (irq_type) {
> > + case UPPER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + case LOWER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: Invalid irq_type\n", __func__);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + switch (irq_type) {
> > + case UPPER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + break;
> > + case LOWER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: Invalid irq_type\n", __func__);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * tsens_set_interrupt_v2 - Disable an interrupt (enable = false)
> > + * Re-enable an interrupt (enable = true)
> > + */
> > +static void tsens_set_interrupt_v2(struct tsens_priv *priv, const struct tsens_irq_data d,
> > + u32 hw_id, enum tsens_irq_type irq_type, bool enable)
> > +{
> > + if (enable) {
> > + switch (irq_type) {
> > + case UPPER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 0);
>
> Maybe just have a variable like mask_reg that is equal to UP_INT_MASK,
> etc? And then one regmap_field_write() call outside the switch that does
> the write to 0?

Agreed. Makes the code nicer.

> > + break;
> > + case LOWER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + case CRITICAL:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[CRIT_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: Invalid irq_type\n", __func__);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + /* To disable the interrupt flag for a sensor:
> > + * 1. Mask further interrupts for this sensor
> > + * 2. Write 1 followed by 0 to clear the interrupt
> > + */
> > + switch (irq_type) {
> > + case UPPER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 0);
>
> Same comment here. Use a local variable for mask and clear and then
> write the register with three regmap_field_write() calls?

Will fix.

> > + break;
> > + case LOWER:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + case CRITICAL:
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[CRIT_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[CRIT_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 1);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[CRIT_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], 0);
> > + break;
> > + default:
>
> I'm not sure we actually need this. Modern compilers check for not
> catching an enum value in a switch case so this shouldn't even really
> matter.

I didn't know that about enums. Will fix.

> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: Invalid irq_type\n", __func__);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * tsens_set_interrupt - Disable an interrupt (enable = false)
> > + * Re-enable an interrupt (enable = true)
> > + */
> > +static void tsens_set_interrupt(struct tsens_priv *priv, const struct tsens_irq_data d,
>
> Why not pass a pointer to tsens_irq_data?

I actually wanted to remove tsens_irq_data completely - see comment
below. I needed it in a previous iteration but now I noticed the data
isn't used. So we can remove the parameter completely.

> > + u32 hw_id, enum tsens_irq_type irq_type, bool enable)
> > +{
> > + /* FIXME: remove tsens_irq_data */
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: %s -> %s\n", hw_id, __func__,
> > + irq_type ? ((irq_type == 1) ? "UP" : "CRITICAL") : "LOW",
> > + enable ? "en" : "dis");
> > + if (tsens_ver(priv) > VER_1_X)
> > + tsens_set_interrupt_v2(priv, d, hw_id, irq_type, enable);
> > + else
> > + tsens_set_interrupt_v1(priv, d, hw_id, irq_type, enable);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int tsens_read_irq_state(struct tsens_priv *priv, u32 hw_id,
> > + struct tsens_sensor *s, struct tsens_irq_data *d)
> > +{
> > + int ret, up_temp, low_temp;
> > +
> > + if (hw_id > priv->num_sensors) {
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s Invalid hw_id\n", __func__);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[UPPER_STATUS_0 + hw_id], &d->up_viol);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[UP_THRESH_0 + hw_id], &up_temp);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[LOWER_STATUS_0 + hw_id], &d->low_viol);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[LOW_THRESH_0 + hw_id], &low_temp);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[UP_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], &d->up_irq_clear);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[LOW_INT_CLEAR_0 + hw_id], &d->low_irq_clear);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + if (tsens_ver(priv) > VER_1_X) {
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[UP_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], &d->up_irq_mask);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[LOW_INT_MASK_0 + hw_id], &d->low_irq_mask);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + } else {
> > + /* No mask register on older TSENS */
> > + d->up_irq_mask = 0;
> > + d->low_irq_mask = 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + d->up_thresh = tsens_hw_to_mC("upthresh", s, UP_THRESH_0, up_temp);
> > + d->low_thresh = tsens_hw_to_mC("lowthresh", s, LOW_THRESH_0, low_temp);
> > +
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s%s: status(%u|%u) | clr(%u|%u) | mask(%u|%u)\n",
> > + hw_id, __func__, (d->up_viol || d->low_viol) ? "(V)" : "",
> > + d->low_viol, d->up_viol, d->low_irq_clear, d->up_irq_clear,
> > + d->low_irq_mask, d->up_irq_mask);
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s%s: thresh: (%d:%d)\n", hw_id, __func__,
> > + (d->up_viol || d->low_viol) ? "(violation)" : "",
> > + d->low_thresh, d->up_thresh);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u32 masked_irq(u32 hw_id, u32 mask, enum tsens_ver ver)
> > +{
> > + if (ver > VER_1_X) {
> > + return mask & (1 << hw_id);
> > + } else {
> > + /* v1, v0.1 don't have a irq mask register */
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> Same return comment.

Will fix.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static unsigned long tsens_filter_active_sensors(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + int i, ret, up, low;
> > + unsigned long mask = 0;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_sensors; i++) {
> > + struct tsens_sensor *s = &priv->sensor[i];
> > + u32 hw_id = s->hw_id;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->sensor[i].tzd))
> > + continue;
> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[UPPER_STATUS_0 + hw_id], &up);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> Probably don't want to return ret here given that this returns a mask.
> Maybe push this into the callsite loop and then break out or return an
> error from there instead. Making a mask via a loop and then using that
> again the second time to test the bit is more complicated.

Right. I only wanted to iterate over sensors that had crossed their
thresholds in the irq thread. Will move it back to the irq_thread
function and split tsens_read_irq_state into two parts - one to just
check if the sensor crossed a threshold, the other reading all other
irq information.

> > + ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[LOWER_STATUS_0 + hw_id], &low);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + if (up || low)
> > + set_bit(hw_id, &mask);
> > + }
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "%s: hw_id mask: 0x%lx\n", __func__, mask);
> > +
> > + return mask;
> > +}
> > +
> > +irqreturn_t tsens_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct tsens_priv *priv = data;
> > + int temp, ret, i;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + bool enable = true, disable = false;
> > + unsigned long mask = tsens_filter_active_sensors(priv);
> > +
> > + if (!mask) {
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: Spurious interrupt?\n", __func__);
>
> Do we need the spurious irq print? Doesn't genirq already tell us about
> spurious interrupts and shuts them down?

Already got rid of this. I realised it isn't a spurious interrupt but
the irq being level triggered and sometimes the temperature gets back
to below the thresholds in the time where the irq thread is schduled.

> > + return IRQ_NONE;

we return IRQ_HANDLED here, in that case.

> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Check if any sensor raised an IRQ - for each sensor connected to the
>
> /*
> * Please make multiline comments
> * like this
> */

Done.

> > + * TSENS block if it set the threshold violation bit.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_sensors; i++) {
> > + struct tsens_sensor *s = &priv->sensor[i];
> > + struct tsens_irq_data d;
> > + u32 hw_id = s->hw_id;
> > + bool trigger = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!test_bit(hw_id, &mask))
> > + continue;
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->sensor[i].tzd))
> > + 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->ul_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + tsens_read_irq_state(priv, hw_id, s, &d);
> > +
> > + if (d.up_viol &&
> > + !masked_irq(hw_id, d.up_irq_mask, tsens_ver(priv))) {
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, UPPER, disable);
> > + if (d.up_thresh > temp) {
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: re-arm upper\n",
> > + priv->sensor[i].hw_id, __func__);
> > + /* unmask the interrupt for this sensor */
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, UPPER, enable);
> > + } else {
> > + trigger = 1;
> > + /* Keep irq masked */
> > + }
> > + } else if (d.low_viol &&
> > + !masked_irq(hw_id, d.low_irq_mask, tsens_ver(priv))) {
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, LOWER, disable);
> > + if (d.low_thresh < temp) {
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: re-arm low\n",
> > + priv->sensor[i].hw_id, __func__);
> > + /* unmask the interrupt for this sensor */
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, LOWER, enable);
> > + } else {
> > + trigger = 1;
> > + /* Keep irq masked */
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* TODO: (amit) REALLY??? */
>
> Remove it, and the mb?

Already removed, this shouldn't have snuck through in v1.

> > + mb();
> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->ul_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + if (trigger) {
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: TZ update trigger (%d mC)\n",
> > + hw_id, __func__, temp);
> > + thermal_zone_device_update(priv->sensor[i].tzd,
> > + THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
> > + } else {
> > + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: no violation: %d\n",
> > + hw_id, __func__, temp);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int tsens_set_trips(void *_sensor, int low, int high)
> > +{
> > + struct tsens_sensor *s = _sensor;
> > + struct tsens_priv *priv = s->priv;
> > + struct device *dev = priv->dev;
> > + struct tsens_irq_data d;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int high_val, low_val, cl_high, cl_low;
> > + bool enable = true;
> > + u32 hw_id = s->hw_id;
> > +
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "[%u] %s: proposed thresholds: (%d:%d)\n",
> > + hw_id, __func__, low, high);
> > +
> > + cl_high = clamp_val(high, -40000, 120000);
> > + cl_low = clamp_val(low, -40000, 120000);
> > +
> > + high_val = tsens_mC_to_hw(s, cl_high);
> > + low_val = tsens_mC_to_hw(s, cl_low);
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->ul_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + tsens_read_irq_state(priv, hw_id, s, &d);
> > +
> > + /* Write the new thresholds and clear the status */
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[LOW_THRESH_0 + hw_id], low_val);
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[UP_THRESH_0 + hw_id], high_val);
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, LOWER, enable);
> > + tsens_set_interrupt(priv, d, hw_id, UPPER, enable);
> > +
> > + /* TODO: (amit) REALLY??? */
> > + mb();
>
> Again!

Done

> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->ul_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "[%u] %s: (%d:%d)->(%d:%d)\n",
> > + s->hw_id, __func__, d.low_thresh, d.up_thresh, cl_low, cl_high);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int tsens_enable_irq(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + int val = (tsens_ver(priv) > VER_1_X) ? 7 : 1;
>
> Drop useless parenthesis.

Will fix.

> > +
> > + ret = regmap_field_write(priv->rf[INT_EN], val);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: failed to enable interrupts\n", __func__);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void tsens_disable_irq(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + regmap_field_write(priv->rf[INT_EN], 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > int get_temp_tsens_valid(struct tsens_sensor *s, int *temp)
> > {
> > struct tsens_priv *priv = s->priv;
> > @@ -334,6 +719,88 @@ int __init init_common(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > goto err_put_device;
> > }
> > }
> > + for (i = 0, j = UPPER_STATUS_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = LOWER_STATUS_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = CRITICAL_STATUS_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Can you make a function for this? Takes priv, and a 'j' and then does
> the allocation and returns failure if something went bad? Then it's a
> simple
>
> devm_tsens_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv, CRITICAL_STATUS_0);
>
> pile of calls. Maybe it could even be iterated through for j too in
> another loop, not sure how the registers are setup though.

Yes, I will fix this. Some history for why I have this silly
implementation: I was trying to figure out what bit fields were
present in different versions of the IP while trying to save some
bytes by only alloc'ing things are present on the version of the IP. I
have reached the conclusion that we should just alloc in a loop is a
lot simpler at the cost of some extra bytes.

I will revisit this again.

Thanks again for the review.

Regards,
Amit

> > + for (i = 0, j = UP_THRESH_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = LOW_THRESH_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = UP_INT_CLEAR_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = LOW_INT_CLEAR_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = UP_INT_MASK_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0, j = LOW_INT_MASK_0; i < priv->feat->max_sensors; i++, j++) {
> > + priv->rf[j] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[j]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[j])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[j]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + priv->rf[INT_EN] = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, priv->tm_map,
> > + priv->fields[INT_EN]);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->rf[INT_EN])) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->rf[INT_EN]);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > +
> > + tsens_enable_irq(priv);
> > + spin_lock_init(&priv->ul_lock);
>
> Maybe you should initialize the spinlock before requesting the irq.
>
> >
> > tsens_debug_init(op);
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c
> > index 772aa76b50e1..bc83e40ac0cf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> > #include <linux/err.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/pm.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > @@ -78,12 +79,15 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tsens_table);
> > static const struct thermal_zone_of_device_ops tsens_of_ops = {
> > .get_temp = tsens_get_temp,
> > .get_trend = tsens_get_trend,
> > + .set_trips = tsens_set_trips,
> > };
> >
> > static int tsens_register(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > {
> > - int i;
> > + int i, ret, irq;
> > struct thermal_zone_device *tzd;
> > + struct resource *res;
> > + struct platform_device *op = of_find_device_by_node(priv->dev->of_node);
>
> What if this fails?
>
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < priv->num_sensors; i++) {
> > priv->sensor[i].priv = priv;
> > @@ -96,7 +100,25 @@ static int tsens_register(struct tsens_priv *priv)
> > if (priv->ops->enable)
> > priv->ops->enable(priv, i);
> > }
> > +
> > + res = platform_get_resource(op, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
> > + if (res) {
> > + irq = res->start;
> > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&op->dev, irq,
> > + NULL, tsens_irq_thread,
> > + IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH | IRQF_ONESHOT,
> > + res->name, priv);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: failed to get irq\n", __func__);
> > + goto err_put_device;
> > + }
> > + enable_irq_wake(irq);
> > + }
> > return 0;
> > +
> > +err_put_device:
> > + put_device(&op->dev);
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static int tsens_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h
> > index e1d6af71b2b9..aab47337b797 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h
> > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@
> > #define CAL_DEGC_PT2 120
> > #define SLOPE_FACTOR 1000
> > #define SLOPE_DEFAULT 3200
> > +#define THRESHOLD_MAX_ADC_CODE 0x3ff
> > +#define THRESHOLD_MIN_ADC_CODE 0x0
> >
> > -
> > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>
> Include this in the C driver?
>
> > #include <linux/thermal.h>
> > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> >
> > @@ -26,6 +28,12 @@ enum tsens_ver {
> > VER_2_X,
> > };
> >
> > +enum tsens_irq_type {
> > + LOWER,
> > + UPPER,

2019-08-26 21:09:09

by Stephen Boyd

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-08-21 05:55:39)
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-08-19 00:58:23)
> > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 9:37 AM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void tsens_debug_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct tsens_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > + struct dentry *root, *file;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + root = debugfs_lookup("tsens", NULL);
> > > >
> > > > Does this get created many times? Why doesn't tsens have a pointer to
> > > > the root saved away somewhere globally?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess we could call the statement below to create the root dir and
> > > save away the pointer. I was trying to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS in
> > > init_common() and instead have all of it in a single function that
> > > gets called once per instance of the tsens controller.
> >
> > Or call this code many times and try to create the tsens node if
> > !tsens_root exists where the variable is some global.
>
> So I didn't quite understand this statement. The change you're
> requesting is that the 'root' variable below should be a global?
>
> tsens_probe() will get called twice on platforms with two instances of
> the controller. So I will need to check some place if the 'tsens' root
> dir already exists in debugfs, no? That is what I'm doing below.
>

Yeah. I was suggesting making a global instead of doing the lookup, but
I guess the lookup is fine and avoids a global variable. It's all
debugfs so it doesn't really matter. Sorry! Do whatever then.

Subject: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 02/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Simplify code flow in tsens_probe

Subject: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add __func__ identifier to debug statements

Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Get rid of id field in tsens_sensor

Subject: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: [PATCH 08/15] arm64: dts: sdm845: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 09/15] arm64: dts: msm8996: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 12/15] arm64: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 14/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Create function to return sign-extended temperature

Subject: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: dts: msm8916: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 15/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 06/15] arm64: dts: msm8916: thermal: Fixup HW ids for cpu sensors

Subject: [PATCH 05/15] arm: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add thermal zones for each sensor

Subject: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: [PATCH 10/15] arm64: dts: msm8998: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: [PATCH 11/15] arm64: dts: qcs404: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] arm64: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add interrupt support

Attachments:

Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] arm64: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Attachments:

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] arm: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add thermal zones for each sensor

Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] arm64: dts: msm8974: thermal: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] thermal: qcom: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] arm64: dts: msm8916: thermal: Fixup HW ids for cpu sensors

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Get rid of id field in tsens_sensor

Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Simplify code flow in tsens_probe

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add __func__ identifier to debug statements

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Create function to return sign-extended temperature

Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Get rid of id field in tsens_sensor

Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Simplify code flow in tsens_probe

Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt: thermal: tsens: Document interrupt support in tsens driver

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add __func__ identifier to debug statements

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Create function to return sign-extended temperature

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add interrupt support

Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add debugfs support

Subject: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add func identifier to debug statements

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add func identifier to debug statements

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add func identifier to debug statements