linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/25] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove the multiple sensors support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171017210706.GA3772@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:07:08 -0700
From:   Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     rui.zhang@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kevin.wangtao@...aro.org,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove the multiple sensors
 support

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03:40PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 20:25, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 17/10/2017 05:54, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:02:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>> By essence, the tsensor does not really support multiple sensor at the same
> >>>> time. It allows to set a sensor and use it to get the temperature, another
> >>>> sensor could be switched but with a delay of 3-5ms. It is difficult to read
> >>>> simultaneously several sensors without a big delay.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Is 3-5 ms enough to loose an event? Is this really a problem?
> >>
> >> There are several aspects:
> >>
> >>  - the multiple sensors is not needed here
> > 
> > Well, that is debatable, I cannot really agree or disagree with the
> > above statement without understanding the use cases and most important,
> > the location of each sensor. What is the location of each sensor?
> > 
> >>
> >>  - the temperature controller is not designed to read several sensors at
> >> the same time, we switch the sensor and that clears some internal
> >> buffers and re-init the controller
> > 
> > Which is still very helpful in case you have multiple hotspots that you
> > want to track and they are exposed on different workloads. Sacrificing
> > the availability of sensors is something needs a better justification
> > other than "current code uses only one".
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>  - some boards can take 40°C in 1 sec, the temperature increase is
> >> insanely fast and reading several sensors add an extra 15ms.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Ok... What is the difference in update rate with and without the switch
> > of sensors? With the above worst case, you have about 4/6 mC/ms. Can
> > your tsensor support that resolution for a single sensor? What is the
> > maximum resolution a tsensor can support? What is the penalty added with
> > switch?
> > 
> > Based on this data, and the above 3-5ms, that  means you would miss about
> > ~ 3 - 4 mC while switching ( assuming tsensor can really achieve the
> > above rate of change: 5ms * 4/6 mC /ms). Are you sure that is
> > enough justification to drop three extra sensors?
> 
> Ok if I refer to the documentation the rate is 0.768 ms with the current
> configuration.
> 
> The driver is currently bogus: register overwritten, bouncing interrupt,
> unneeded lock, ... So the proposition was to remove the multiple sensors
> support, clean the driver, and re-introduce it if there is a need.
> 
> If I remember correctly Leo, author of the driver, agreed on this. Leo ?
> 
> Note, I'm not strongly against multiple sensors support in the driver if
> you think it is convenient but it is much simpler to remove the current
> code as it is not used and put it back on top of a sane foundation
> instead of circumventing that on the existing code.
> 
> 

I am also fine with the above strategy, as long as you are sure you are
not breaking anyone (specially userspace). Also, it would be good to get
a reviewed-by from hisilicon just to confirm (Leo?).

Besides, once you get his reviewed-by, and add it to the patches,
can you please resend the series with the minor issues I
mentioned (a few minor checkpatch issues and one compilation warn that
is added to the driver after the series is applied).

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> 
> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>