[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPLW+4kP25-LWArZGxQ2yy-pc1RDCVng+5Z667cCbb+h_V6A8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:03:46 -0500
From: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
To: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/thermal/exynos: use tmu_temp_mask consistently
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:10 AM Mateusz Majewski
<m.majewski2@...sung.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the usages in sanitize_temp_error were missed, probably because
> the boards being used never actually exceeded 255 in their trimming
> information. This is needed for Exynos 850 support, which uses 9-bit
> temperature codes.
>
That looks like an actual fix to me, so maybe also add the
corresponding "Fixes:" tag here?
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> index 9b7ca93a72f1..61606a9b9a00 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> @@ -237,17 +237,17 @@ static void sanitize_temp_error(struct exynos_tmu_data *data, u32 trim_info)
>
> data->temp_error1 = trim_info & tmu_temp_mask;
> data->temp_error2 = ((trim_info >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &
EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT=8 in the driver. Is that value actually
correct in case of Exynos850? I just checked the TRM and it says the
layout for TRIMINFO0 register is as follows:
- RSVD: Bit [31:24]
- CALIB_SEL: Bit [23]
- T_BUF_VREF_SEL: Bit [22:18]
- TRIMINFO_85_P0: Bit [17:9]
- TRIMINFO_25_P0: Bit [8:0]
So maybe that shift value should be 9 instead of 8 for Exynos850? Not
sure about other platforms though, this might be also the case for
Exynos7 SoCs too (SOC_ARCH_EXYNOS7 in the driver).
> - EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK);
> + tmu_temp_mask);
>
> if (!data->temp_error1 ||
> (data->min_efuse_value > data->temp_error1) ||
> (data->temp_error1 > data->max_efuse_value))
> - data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
> + data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & tmu_temp_mask;
>
> if (!data->temp_error2)
> data->temp_error2 =
> (data->efuse_value >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &
> - EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
> + tmu_temp_mask;
> }
>
> static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
> --
> 2.45.1
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists