Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1361748 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] devicetree: bindings: let thermal-sensor point to other thermal zones

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] devicetree: bindings: let thermal-sensor point to  other thermal zones Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> - 2016-03-21 13:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] devicetree: bindings: let thermal-sensor point to  other thermal zones Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 16:20 +0100

#1361748 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] devicetree: bindings: let thermal-sensor point to other thermal zones

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 07:21:53PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:09:44PM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > The thermal-sensor property of the thermal zone node accepts phandles to
> > > thermal sensors.  However, thermal zones can be created as an
> > > +
> > > +		thermal-sensors = <&cpu_thermal &gpu_thermal &lcd_thermal>
> > 
> > This seems inconsistent. Why can a thermal zone only have multiple
> > thermal sensors when they are thermal zones themselves? Either we assume
> > that one thermal zone has a single sensor or we assume that it can have
> > multiple sensors, but this should not depend on the zone being a sub zone
> > or not.
> > 
> > I think the thermal-sensors property should always point to one or
> > multiple sensors. I see no point in "This property either points to
> > exactly one sensor or multiple other thermal zones (from which we only
> > use the temperature)"
> 
> 
> Agreed here. In fact, if we are going to allow thermal zones to be
> treated as sensors, it means there should be no limits on what you put
> of there, as long as all items have #thermal-sensor-cells. So, mixing
> one (or more) regular sensors, with other thermal zones shall be
> allowed, if we agree in this semantics.

Eduardo, thanks for the review.  There doesn't seem to be much
interest in this and I currently have no time to work on it so I am
dropping this series for the time being.  I'm happy for this to be
picked up by somebody else (or who knows, maybe I will be able to work
on it again in the future).

Javi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362811

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:55:11AM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 07:21:53PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:09:44PM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > > The thermal-sensor property of the thermal zone node accepts phandles to
> > > > thermal sensors.  However, thermal zones can be created as an
> > > > +
> > > > +		thermal-sensors = <&cpu_thermal &gpu_thermal &lcd_thermal>
> > > 
> > > This seems inconsistent. Why can a thermal zone only have multiple
> > > thermal sensors when they are thermal zones themselves? Either we assume
> > > that one thermal zone has a single sensor or we assume that it can have
> > > multiple sensors, but this should not depend on the zone being a sub zone
> > > or not.
> > > 
> > > I think the thermal-sensors property should always point to one or
> > > multiple sensors. I see no point in "This property either points to
> > > exactly one sensor or multiple other thermal zones (from which we only
> > > use the temperature)"
> > 
> > 
> > Agreed here. In fact, if we are going to allow thermal zones to be
> > treated as sensors, it means there should be no limits on what you put
> > of there, as long as all items have #thermal-sensor-cells. So, mixing
> > one (or more) regular sensors, with other thermal zones shall be
> > allowed, if we agree in this semantics.
> 
> Eduardo, thanks for the review.  There doesn't seem to be much
> interest in this and I currently have no time to work on it so I am
> dropping this series for the time being.  I'm happy for this to be
> picked up by somebody else (or who knows, maybe I will be able to work
> on it again in the future).

Ok Javi, as this was one of the topics agreed for a change, I will take it over.

Thanks for your help.

> 
> Javi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web