From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB982E401; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 06:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737871806; cv=none; b=ZXgCAXA/nihQuHoHgunTwCfUXB0JWtWheYwNzmu0zYo2yW3MvQOBSPFZoIC6LQHUeNe7sZZqKr6M/RWR3UyzJZuHm5Ty9/G6BXvblTEEgGDCDsezxaqAEEqMdq5OJyW4q8iioY7IUodvRfahDnGaRhwDsS1upAvmxjAUpDrsV5c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737871806; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OZFQPG1DE/iRe9eAQLaZjT9PSVE704rGI5T5SqRrPs8=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=hpu4sNRz61Mhld2peT7xkeqfPAKfoDJUnxA1whhlxUgt5f/bv87lIK+FNvOt4+iqAG8ZF75WRposyjvLySAfG5/miok7OrDCjY0YMsvDUl8Jl63t5rTB3fPnILZqy2OkA8rIQJ3AOav2WYx6Lbf5c19EbXiexUQz5o/lsHVu4dE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=tFUnnaeH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="tFUnnaeH" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1737871795; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DrfJ78PLe0e9lwqqdfT9D6sSqigv1UBh5RIKHcYWJUo=; b=tFUnnaeHEoJd5qT2dXcBvG5zfVSBBuQY0/Y5kapqlcWbPiuFKZnhBj+PvnOdzX6zh+LW6H KkkXKM2YEtUfPDEz2vyceipOk0casJxkryLczSLNE8kKU7mQVJB1/gh/J5yujLDUKIwQHs Tqu9QKkN1+6I6Q3YEjwZ9acULarTagpytbjS15NMT7QW6nS6oenVcUQmhxbUXnKAqKKXFA cZwLD+dzYA8ZJ6Pn3TiRaW2NPwHsghN2bL8I2vebY3ndh2GqFgVH9stE3kmb6J98Z7OrqH qHvYwFIaW7pzIj5dznkKFHVmqUc4gsynvioOWn4wQ7YNzkeaDCJCTOQEhwNesw== Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:09:54 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Alexey Charkov Cc: Alexander Shiyan , Rob Herring , Conor Dooley , Heiko Stuebner , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Fix broken tsadc pinctrl binding for rk3588 In-Reply-To: References: <20250124052611.3705-1-eagle.alexander923@gmail.com> <61b494b209d7360d0f36adbf6d5443a4@manjaro.org> Message-ID: <3e5e7761887e7624c2c225b105105864@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Alexey, On 2025-01-24 18:23, Alexey Charkov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:37 PM Dragan Simic > wrote: >> On 2025-01-24 11:25, Alexey Charkov wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:06 PM Dragan Simic >> > wrote: >> >> On 2025-01-24 09:33, Alexey Charkov wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:26 AM Alexander Shiyan >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no pinctrl "gpio" and "otpout" (probably designed as >> >> >> "output") >> >> >> handling in the tsadc driver. >> >> >> Let's use proper binding "default" and "sleep". >> >> > >> >> > This looks reasonable, however I've tried it on my Radxa Rock 5C and >> >> > the driver still doesn't claim GPIO0 RK_PA1 even with this change. As >> >> > a result, a simulated thermal runaway condition (I've changed the >> >> > tshut temperature to 65000 and tshut mode to 1) doesn't trigger a PMIC >> >> > reset, even though a direct `gpioset 0 1=0` does. >> >> > >> >> > Are any additional changes needed to the driver itself? >> >> >> >> I've been digging through this patch the whole TSADC/OTP thing in the >> >> last couple of hours, and AFAIK some parts of the upstream driver are >> >> still missing, in comparison with the downstream driver. >> >> >> >> I've got some small suggestions for the patch itself, but the issue >> >> you observed is obviously of higher priority, and I've singled it out >> >> as well while digging through the code. >> >> >> >> Could you, please, try the patch below quickly, to see is it going to >> >> fix the issue you observed? I've got some "IRL stuff" to take care of >> >> today, so I can't test it myself, and it would be great to know is it >> >> the right path to the proper fix. >> >> >> >> diff --git i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c >> >> w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c >> >> index f551df48eef9..62f0e14a8d98 100644 >> >> --- i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c >> >> +++ w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c >> >> @@ -1568,6 +1568,11 @@ static int rockchip_thermal_probe(struct >> >> platform_device *pdev) >> >> thermal->chip->initialize(thermal->grf, thermal->regs, >> >> thermal->tshut_polarity); >> >> >> >> + if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_GPIO) >> >> + pinctrl_select_default_state(dev); >> >> + else >> >> + pinctrl_select_sleep_state(dev); >> > >> > I believe no 'else' block is needed here, because if tshut_mode is not >> > TSHUT_MODE_GPIO then the TSADC doesn't use this pin at all, so there's >> > no reason for the driver to mess with its pinctrl state. I'd rather >> > put a mirroring block to put the pin back to its 'sleep' state in the >> > removal function for the TSHUT_MODE_GPIO case. >> >> You're right, but the "else block" is what the downstream driver does, > > Does it though? It only handles the TSHUT_MODE_GPIO case as far as I > can tell (or TSHUT_MODE_OTP in downstream driver lingo) [1] > > [1] > https://github.com/radxa/kernel/blob/edb3eeeaa4643ecac6f4185d6d391c574735fca1/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c#L2564 Ah, you're right. Somehow I saw something that actually wasn't there, so the else block would indeed be redundant. >> so I think it's better to simply stay on the safe side and follow that >> logic in the upstream driver. Is it really needed? Perhaps not, but >> it also shouldn't hurt.