[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e57300bb-163b-2963-e55e-a5d0b0678f4f@somainline.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:19:17 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, martin.botka@...ainline.org,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org,
marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, jamipkettunen@...ainline.org,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] thermal: qcom: tsens-v1: Add support for MSM8992/4
TSENS
On 27.06.2022 17:15, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 at 23:21, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org> wrote:
>>
>> MSM8994, despite being heavily based on MSM8974, uses the
>> 1.2 version of TSENS. Also, 8994 being 8994, it has a custom
>> way of calculating the slope.
>>
>> MSM8992 in turn is a cut-down version of MSM8994 and uses
>> the same TSENS hardware, albeit with a different set of sensors.
>>
>> Also tested on 8976 (by a person who didn't want to be named)
>> to make sure the 11->16 max_sensors changes didn't break anything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
>> ---
>> Changes since v2:
>>
>> - don't use slope before it's initialized (whoops!)
>> - don't re-assign the same value to p[0..15]
>> - free calib_rsel
>> - use the same ops for 8992 and 8994
>>
>> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v1.c | 293 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c | 6 +
>> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 288 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v1.c b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v1.c
>> index 573e261ccca7..58864962f370 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v1.c
>> @@ -142,6 +142,99 @@
>> #define CAL_SEL_MASK 7
>> #define CAL_SEL_SHIFT 0
>>
>> +/* eeprom layout data for 8994 */
>> +#define MSM8994_BASE0_MASK 0x3ff
>> +#define MSM8994_BASE1_MASK 0xffc00
>> +#define MSM8994_BASE0_SHIFT 0
>> +#define MSM8994_BASE1_SHIFT 10
>
> Generally I feel that all the _MASK values can be better generated
> using the GENMASK and newly defined _SHIFT value.
Yes, I agree, however I think it'd be better to do it for
all the defines in this file at once in a separate commit.
Konrad
>
>> +
>> +#define MSM8994_S0_MASK 0xf00000
>> +#define MSM8994_S1_MASK 0xf000000
>> +#define MSM8994_S2_MASK 0xf0000000
>> +#define MSM8994_S3_MASK 0xf
>> +#define MSM8994_S4_MASK 0xf0
>> +#define MSM8994_S5_MASK 0xf00
>> +#define MSM8994_S6_MASK 0xf000
>> +#define MSM8994_S7_MASK 0xf0000
>> +#define MSM8994_S8_MASK 0xf00000
>> +#define MSM8994_S9_MASK 0xf000000
>> +#define MSM8994_S10_MASK 0xf0000000
>> +#define MSM8994_S11_MASK 0xf
>> +#define MSM8994_S12_MASK 0xf0
>> +#define MSM8994_S13_MASK 0xf00
>> +#define MSM8994_S14_MASK 0xf000
>> +#define MSM8994_S15_MASK 0xf0000
>> +
>> +#define MSM8994_S0_SHIFT 20
>> +#define MSM8994_S1_SHIFT 24
>> +#define MSM8994_S2_SHIFT 28
>> +#define MSM8994_S3_SHIFT 0
>> +#define MSM8994_S4_SHIFT 4
>> +#define MSM8994_S5_SHIFT 8
>> +#define MSM8994_S6_SHIFT 12
>> +#define MSM8994_S7_SHIFT 16
>> +#define MSM8994_S8_SHIFT 20
>> +#define MSM8994_S9_SHIFT 24
>> +#define MSM8994_S10_SHIFT 28
>> +#define MSM8994_S11_SHIFT 0
>> +#define MSM8994_S12_SHIFT 4
>> +#define MSM8994_S13_SHIFT 8
>> +#define MSM8994_S14_SHIFT 12
>> +#define MSM8994_S15_SHIFT 16
>
> [skipped the rest]
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists