diff mbox series

[2/6] drivers/thermal/exynos: use tmu_temp_mask consistently

Message ID 20240719120853.1924771-3-m.majewski2@samsung.com
State New
Headers show
Series [1/6] drivers/thermal/exynos: use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS | expand

Commit Message

Mateusz Majewski July 19, 2024, 12:08 p.m. UTC
Some of the usages in sanitize_temp_error were missed, probably because
the boards being used never actually exceeded 255 in their trimming
information. This is needed for Exynos 850 support, which uses 9-bit
temperature codes.

Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Sam Protsenko July 22, 2024, 7:03 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:10 AM Mateusz Majewski
<m.majewski2@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the usages in sanitize_temp_error were missed, probably because
> the boards being used never actually exceeded 255 in their trimming
> information. This is needed for Exynos 850 support, which uses 9-bit
> temperature codes.
>

That looks like an actual fix to me, so maybe also add the
corresponding "Fixes:" tag here?

> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> index 9b7ca93a72f1..61606a9b9a00 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> @@ -237,17 +237,17 @@ static void sanitize_temp_error(struct exynos_tmu_data *data, u32 trim_info)
>
>         data->temp_error1 = trim_info & tmu_temp_mask;
>         data->temp_error2 = ((trim_info >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &

EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT=8 in the driver. Is that value actually
correct in case of Exynos850? I just checked the TRM and it says the
layout for TRIMINFO0 register is as follows:

  - RSVD: Bit [31:24]
  - CALIB_SEL: Bit [23]
  - T_BUF_VREF_SEL: Bit [22:18]
  - TRIMINFO_85_P0: Bit [17:9]
  - TRIMINFO_25_P0: Bit [8:0]

So maybe that shift value should be 9 instead of 8 for Exynos850? Not
sure about other platforms though, this might be also the case for
Exynos7 SoCs too (SOC_ARCH_EXYNOS7 in the driver).

> -                               EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK);
> +                               tmu_temp_mask);
>
>         if (!data->temp_error1 ||
>             (data->min_efuse_value > data->temp_error1) ||
>             (data->temp_error1 > data->max_efuse_value))
> -               data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
> +               data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & tmu_temp_mask;
>
>         if (!data->temp_error2)
>                 data->temp_error2 =
>                         (data->efuse_value >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &
> -                       EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
> +                       tmu_temp_mask;
>  }
>
>  static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
> --
> 2.45.1
>
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
index 9b7ca93a72f1..61606a9b9a00 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
@@ -237,17 +237,17 @@  static void sanitize_temp_error(struct exynos_tmu_data *data, u32 trim_info)
 
 	data->temp_error1 = trim_info & tmu_temp_mask;
 	data->temp_error2 = ((trim_info >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &
-				EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK);
+				tmu_temp_mask);
 
 	if (!data->temp_error1 ||
 	    (data->min_efuse_value > data->temp_error1) ||
 	    (data->temp_error1 > data->max_efuse_value))
-		data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
+		data->temp_error1 = data->efuse_value & tmu_temp_mask;
 
 	if (!data->temp_error2)
 		data->temp_error2 =
 			(data->efuse_value >> EXYNOS_TRIMINFO_85_SHIFT) &
-			EXYNOS_TMU_TEMP_MASK;
+			tmu_temp_mask;
 }
 
 static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)