Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231109183322.28039-1-sumitg@nvidia.com> <20231109183322.28039-2-sumitg@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231109183322.28039-2-sumitg@nvidia.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 20:59:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jEXYP-V93XJ02cZ8UbMwKei2E27Sc0He0WnKvNXpUECg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v6 1/2] ACPI: thermal: Add Thermal fast Sampling Period
 (_TFP) support
To:     Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org,
        lpieralisi@kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        treding@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, bbasu@nvidia.com,
        sanjayc@nvidia.com, ksitaraman@nvidia.com, srikars@nvidia.com,
        jbrasen@nvidia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com>
>
> Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling.
> As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both
> are present in a Thermal zone.
>
> [1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling
>     Period)"
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com>
> Co-developed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive {
>         struct acpi_thermal_trip trip;
>         unsigned long tc1;
>         unsigned long tc2;
> -       unsigned long tsp;
> +       unsigned long delay;
>  };
>
>  struct acpi_thermal_active {
> @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
>
>         tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp;
>
> +       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp);
> +       if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> +               tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp;
> +               return true;
> +       }
> +
>         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>                 return false;
>
> -       tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp;
> +       tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100;
>
>         return true;
>  }
> @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>
>         acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip;
>         if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) {
> -               passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100;
> +               passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay;
>
>                 trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE;
>                 trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk);
> --

So does the second patch in the series really depend on this one?

If not, I can apply it I think.