[PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: document Rockchip thermal

[Eduardo Valentin]

Arnd,

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:32:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2014 08:18:43 Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > As what we want is to make thermal driver have a chance to configure the
> > > hardware shutdown registers, I'm thinking if we can do this without
> > > representing the hardware shutdown value as a trip point.
> > > Say,
> > > 1. parse DT, and get the hardware shutdown temperature value, and store
> > > it somewhere, e.g. struct __thermal_zone.
> > > 2. introduce a new parameter, int (*set_hardware_trip)(void *, long *),
> > > in thermal_zone_of_sensor_register().
> > > 3. invoke set_hard_trip(tz, hardware_shutdown_temperature_value) in
> > > thermal_zone_of_sensor_register().
> > 
> > The only issue I have with the above proposal is that not all platforms
> > use DT. Some still boot with boardfiles, for instance. Thus, the
> > parameter to configure hardware thermal shutdown needs to be common on
> > thermal core, not specific to of-thermal. Do you agree?
> 
> Do you know of a machine that can't yet be converted to DT and that
> needs this driver? In case of rockchips that is certainly not the
> case, and we don't care about anybody trying to use board files out
> of tree, they can just hack the thermal support as well.

I see. Again, the only concern I have is to produce thermal framework APIs
that would be only in the of-thermal. My point is not specific to this
patch, or this platform, but with a detail in the above proposal. 

While I agree to have a trip specific to configurable hardware triggered
thermal shutdown, I just don't see why it needs to be a feature
implemented only via of-thermal. It has to be properly defined in
thermal core.

The proposal of of-thermal is not to become a separate/competing thermal
framework.

> 
> 	Arnd

Cheers,

Eduardo