Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] thermal: imx: implement runtime PM support | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:56:15 +0200 |
| |
On 21/10/2021 09:44, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 21/10/2021 09:20, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >>> Hi Petr, >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Petr Benes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 07:05, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Petr and Michal, >>>>> >>>>> I forgot to add you for v2 in CC. Please test/review this version. >>>> >>>> Hi Oleksij, >>>> >>>> It works good. with PM as well as without PM. The only minor issue I found is, >>>> that the first temperature reading (when the driver probes) fails. That is >>>> (val & soc_data->temp_valid_mask) == 0) holds true. How does >>>> pm_runtime_resume_and_get() behave in imx_thermal_probe()? >>>> Does it go through imx_thermal_runtime_resume() with usleep_range()? >>> >>> On the first temperature reading, the PM and part of HW is not >>> initialized. Current probe sequence is racy and has at least following >>> issues: >>> - thermal_zone_device_register is executed before HW init was completed. >>> It kind of worked before my patch, becaus part of reinit was done by >>> temperature init. It worked, since the irq_enabled flag was not set, >>> but potentially would run enable_irq() two times if device is >>> overheated on probe. >>> - the imx_thermal core is potentially disable after first race >>> condition: >>> CPU0 CPU1 >>> thermal_zone_device_register() >>> imx_get_temp() >>> irq_enabled == false >>> power_up >>> read_temp >>> power_up >>> power_down >>> irq_enabled = true; >>> >>> ... at this point imx_thermal is powered down for some amount of time, >>> over temperature IRQ will not be triggered for some amount of time. >>> >>> - if some part after thermal_zone_device_register() would fail or >>> deferred, the worker polling temperature will run in to NULL pointer. >>> This issue already happened... >>> >>> After migrating to runtime PM, one of issues started to be visible even >>> on normal conditions. >>> I'll send one more patch with reworking probe sequence. >> >> Are you planning to send a v3 with this patch? Or a separate patch? > > I'm OK with both variants. What do you prefer? > > I'll do i on top of PM patch to reduce refactoring overhead, if you OK > about it.
I prefer you resend a couple of patches but change the subject of this patch to something like "thermal/drivers/imx: Fix disabled sensor after handling trip temperature" in order to reflect the problem, not the solution.
btw: nice fix
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |