[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJMQK-giJTeERnqjxoSMjF-JXxW9SPmeARWf3f9ZyRgBsYN5fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:27:28 +0800
From: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>
To: "michael.kao" <michael.kao@...iatek.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] arm64: dts: mt8183: add thermal zone node
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:27 PM michael.kao <michael.kao@...iatek.com> wrote:
> +
> + tzts1: tzts1 {
> + polling-delay-passive = <0>;
> + polling-delay = <0>;
> + thermal-sensors = <&thermal 1>;
> + sustainable-power = <0>;
> + trips {};
> + cooling-maps {};
> + };
> +
Is 0 a valid initial sustainable-power setting? Since we'll still get
warning[1] about this, though it might not be harmful.
If 0 is a valid setting, maybe we should consider showing the warning
of not setting this property in [2]?
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c#L570
[2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/thermal/of-thermal.c#L1049
Powered by blists - more mailing lists