[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f0ae3d36-8317-b297-cc99-645adca1f25c@somainline.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 14:34:40 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>, agross@...nel.org,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
rafael@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: qcom: lmh: Add support for sm8150
Hi,
On 02.12.2021 23:38, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> Add compatible to support LMh for sm8150 SoC.
> sm8150 does not require explicit enabling for various LMh subsystems.
> Move this piece of code under condition that it is executed only
> for sdm845 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/qcom/lmh.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
[...]
> - return ret;
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sdm845-lmh")) {
> + if (!qcom_scm_lmh_dcvsh_available())
> + return -EINVAL;
I don't believe this is the correct approach, as different SoCs may
require different sequences of these writes (for example SDM660/MSM8998
seems to only enable the thermal algorithm), and there will (hopefully) be interest
in adding LMH support for more platforms, so perhaps separating this somehow
could keep this a bit cleaner and easier to work with for the next person..
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists