[PATCH v2 0/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: TMU support and cleanups

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/05/2026 00:26, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Sun May 24, 2026 at 8:40 PM BST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 May 2026 09:32:24 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> This series introduces protocol support for the Exynos
>>> Thermal Management Unit (TMU) to the ACPM driver, alongside several
>>> cleanups.
>>>
>>> Dependencies
>>> ============
>>> Krzysztof, these patches together with the acpm fixes from your `fixes`
>>> branch will be needed by the thermal maintainers. I'm going to send the
>>> ACPM TMU (thermal) driver for review. In case they'll take it for the
>>> next release, we'll need an immutable tag with the acpm fixes, cleanup
>>> and thermal helpers. Thanks!
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [1/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: Consolidate transfer initialization helper
>>       https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/43d3733b7ffd82b2bfeda69befa2a179335dfe6c
>> [2/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: Annotate rx_data->cmd with __counted_by_ptr
>>       https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/7b20fd06f783c1e901d34305c68df16212cdf669
>> [3/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: Drop redundant _ops suffix in acpm_ops members
>>       https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/ef1109e4b6120a52be1ea66d486d6744d0c5ac47
>> [4/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: Make acpm_ops const and access via pointer
>>       https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/e694e19bf7db26ee324ff6bb450cc523592f5bee
>> [5/6] firmware: samsung: acpm: Add TMU protocol support
>>       https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/f6af402de525d0848fc4a50f25ff01f56fc68d98
> 
> That commit contained the questionable error conversion which works
> only for gs101 -- acpm_tmu_to_linux_err() hides some sensible errors into -EIO.
> There were on-going discussion on maillist.
> 
> Now, it is needed to ignore that or generalise that or split it to have
> different SoCs if needed. Some re-work will be needed.

That patch was looking correct in its scope. It solved one particular
case (GS101) without stopping anyone to grow this to support other cases
(Exynos850 etc)., so it is in kernel spirit to take such things. Solving
these other cases is simply not necessary now. It's also not blocked, so
just build on top and improve that code to match both use cases, when
you have exynos850 consumer of this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof