[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b4f8911-90ef-8419-78dc-c2bffe9b9a3f@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:25:10 +0530
From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: <rui.zhang@...el.com>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
<guohanjun@...wei.com>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <treding@...dia.com>,
<jonathanh@...dia.com>, <bbasu@...dia.com>, <sanjayc@...dia.com>,
<ksitaraman@...dia.com>, <srikars@...dia.com>,
<jbrasen@...dia.com>, "Sumit Gupta" <sumitg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v6 1/2] ACPI: thermal: Add Thermal fast Sampling Period
(_TFP) support
On 22/11/23 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@...dia.com>
>>
>> Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling.
>> As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both
>> are present in a Thermal zone.
>>
>> [1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling
>> Period)"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@...dia.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 12 +++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive {
>> struct acpi_thermal_trip trip;
>> unsigned long tc1;
>> unsigned long tc2;
>> - unsigned long tsp;
>> + unsigned long delay;
>> };
>>
>> struct acpi_thermal_active {
>> @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
>>
>> tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp;
>>
>> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp);
>> + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp;
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp);
>> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> return false;
>>
>> - tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp;
>> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100;
>>
>> return true;
>> }
>> @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>>
>> acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip;
>> if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) {
>> - passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100;
>> + passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay;
>>
>> trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE;
>> trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk);
>> --
>
> So does the second patch in the series really depend on this one?
>
> If not, I can apply it I think.
Yes, this patch can be applied independently. Thank you!
Best Regards,
Sumit Gupta
Powered by blists - more mailing lists