[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160320154031.GA12693@leoy-linaro>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 23:40:31 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
kongxinwei <kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] thermal: change "hysteresis" as optional property
Hi Javi,
Sorry for late response.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:10:52AM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:55:59PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:57:43PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
> > > > > > > The property "hysteresis" is mandatory for trip points, so if without
> > > > > > > it the thermal zone cannot register successfully. But "hysteresis" is
> > > > > > > ignored in the thermal subsystem and only inquired by several thermal
> > > > > > > sensor drivers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the Linux thermal subsystem has a problem with handling hysteresis, I
> > > > > > would rather fix Linux code than relaxing the DT binding. Or if you
> > > > > > still believe hysteresis is really optional, I would prefer to see a
> > > > > > better justification than "Linux ignores it".
> > > >
> > > > I see it the other way round, Is hysteresis a property that, without
> > > > it, the thermal code can't configure itself so it fails to create the
> > > > trip point? The current code goes "There is no hysteresis for this
> > > > property, I don't know how to set up this trip point!". I think we
> > > > can do better than this.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with Javi's suggestion? If you think it's okay, I will
> > > move on to send out a new version patch based on Javi's comments.
> >
> > No I don't. This discussion so far has been about Linux code. I still
> > havent seen an argument explaining why hysteresis has to be optional.
>
> Fair enough. Looks like I'm holding this driver from being
> upstreamed, so I'll back off.
>
> Leo, sorry for misguiding you. Please bring back the hysteresis
> property you had in v1.
Not at all. I will add back hysteresis property and resend new patches.
Thanks,
Leo Yan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists