[PATCH 1/3] thermal: hisilicon: add new hisilicon thermal sensor driver

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 07:57:27AM +0000, kongxinwei wrote:
> This patch adds the support for hisilicon thermal sensor, within
> hisilicon SoC. there will register sensors for thermal framework
> and use device tree to bind cooling device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: kongxinwei <kong.kongxinwei at hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/Kconfig        |   8 +
>  drivers/thermal/Makefile       |   1 +
>  drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 531 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 540 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c

[...]

> +       ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-lag-value",
> +                                  &sensor->lag);

This wasn't in the binding.

[...]

> +       ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-thres-temp",
> +                                  &sensor->thres_temp);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get thres value %d: %d\n",
> +                       index, ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-reset-temp",
> +                                  &sensor->reset_temp);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get reset value %d: %d\n",
> +                       index, ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }

I see now that these properties result in the HW being programmed. You
should figure out how to reconcile these with thermal-zone trip points
rather than having parallel properties.

> +
> +       if (of_property_read_bool(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-bind-irq")) {
> +
> +               if (data->irq_bind_sensor != -1)
> +                       dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "irq has bound to index %d\n",
> +                                data->irq_bind_sensor);
> +
> +               /* bind irq to this sensor */
> +               data->irq_bind_sensor = index;
> +       }

I don't see why this should be specified in the DT. Why do you believe
it should?

[...]

> +static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       struct hisi_thermal_data *data;
> +       struct resource *res;
> +       int i;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (!cpufreq_get_current_driver()) {
> +               dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "no cpufreq driver!");
> +               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +       }

Surely we care about not burning out the board even if we don't have
cpufreq?

Is there any ordering guarantee between the probing of this driver and
cpufreq?


[...]

> +       data->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);

You gave this clock a name in the binding. Use it or drop it.

Mark.