Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e78100-thinkpad-t14s: Add thermal zones for PMICs

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 10/21/26 19:14, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 06:20:55PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 10/21/26 10:49, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Stephan for the additional information, that's very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> We currently have an urgent thermal issue on this platform, and getting this
>>>> thermal mitigation upstream is important to prevent overheating under
>>>> sustained workloads.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be acceptable to address the sensor naming and description
>>>> improvements in a follow-up patch, so that we can get the thermal protection
>>>> in place first?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if any of these changes are critical for the correctness of the
>>>> thermal mitigation, we should address them now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no intention to delay this patch. In fact, since I'm using the
>>> latest unmodified stable kernel on my T14s, I'm also suffering from
>>> these thermal issues. :-)
>>>
>>> On the other hand, we are at the beginning of the merge window and Bjorn
>>> is unlikely to queue patches until that ends. The changes that
>>> I suggested are purely cosmetic (the names of the thermal zones), there
>>> is no need to repeat the thermal validation. The throttling behavior
>>> will be identical no matter which name is used for the thermal zones.
>>>
>>> IMO we should use the remaining time until the merge window ends to
>>> correct the naming to avoid any confusion for people reading the patch
>>> once it lands.
>>
>> Ok, fair enough
>>
>> I propose the following names for the thermal zone:
>>
>>   dram-board-thermal
>>   gpu-board-thermal
>>   fan-board-thermal
>>   wwan-board-thermal
>>   chg-board-thermal
>>   cpu-board-thermal
>>   typec-board-thermal
>>
>> so we can capture with the name the ones related to the non-on-die sensors
>>
>> Sounds good ?
> 
> That works for me, I don't have a strong opinion about the naming (maybe
> @Konrad has?). I guess people reading this might mistakenly assume that
> these refer to separate "sub-boards" in the sense that there is a
> "mainboard", a "Type-C board", a "DRAM board", a "GPU board", etc.
> But I can't think of a better name either. :-)

Hmm, yes. That is a good a point