[v2] thermal: rockchip: shut up GRF warning

[PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

Posted by Sebastian Reichel 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal monitoring
and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml     | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
index 573f447cc26ed7100638277598b0e745d436fd01..9fa5c4c49d76e3a689f31797875124e7fb30d3df 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
@@ -119,6 +119,21 @@ required:
   - resets
 
 allOf:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            enum:
+              - rockchip,px30-tsadc
+              - rockchip,rk3366-tsadc
+              - rockchip,rk3399-tsadc
+              - rockchip,rk3568-tsadc
+    then:
+      required:
+        - rockchip,grf
+    else:
+      properties:
+        rockchip,grf: false
   - if:
       not:
         properties:

-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

Posted by Dragan Simic 1 month, 1 week ago

Hello Sebastian,

On 2025-08-20 19:40, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
> platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal 
> monitoring
> and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml     | 15 
> +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

Thanks for the patch!  It matches what's already presented in your
patch 2/3, so it's looking good to me. Please feel free to include

Reviewed-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>

> diff --git
> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> index
> 573f447cc26ed7100638277598b0e745d436fd01..9fa5c4c49d76e3a689f31797875124e7fb30d3df
> 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> @@ -119,6 +119,21 @@ required:
>    - resets
> 
>  allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - rockchip,px30-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3366-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3399-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3568-tsadc
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - rockchip,grf
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        rockchip,grf: false
>    - if:
>        not:
>          properties:

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

Posted by Conor Dooley 1 month, 2 weeks ago

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
> platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal monitoring
> and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.

I am assuming that "needing it" means that it was actually mandatory but
the binding was just missing the required required entry. If so
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml     | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> index 573f447cc26ed7100638277598b0e745d436fd01..9fa5c4c49d76e3a689f31797875124e7fb30d3df 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> @@ -119,6 +119,21 @@ required:
>    - resets
>  
>  allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - rockchip,px30-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3366-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3399-tsadc
> +              - rockchip,rk3568-tsadc
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - rockchip,grf
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        rockchip,grf: false
>    - if:
>        not:
>          properties:
> 
> -- 
> 2.50.1
>

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

Posted by Sebastian Reichel 2 weeks ago

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 08:48:23PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
> > platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal monitoring
> > and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.
> 
> I am assuming that "needing it" means that it was actually mandatory but
> the binding was just missing the required required entry. If so
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

I just noticed, that I never replied: The GRF configuration is
required for proper functionality as far as I can tell. Technically
it might be skipped, if the bootloader already configured the
registers correctly. but I don't think this is something anyone wants
to rely on and with the same argument we could describe almost any
resource as optional :) The upstream kernel DT always had the GRF
specified for these platforms (and thus most likely has never been
tested without it).

Greetings,

-- Sebastian

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml     | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> > index 573f447cc26ed7100638277598b0e745d436fd01..9fa5c4c49d76e3a689f31797875124e7fb30d3df 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/rockchip-thermal.yaml
> > @@ -119,6 +119,21 @@ required:
> >    - resets
> >  
> >  allOf:
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatible:
> > +          contains:
> > +            enum:
> > +              - rockchip,px30-tsadc
> > +              - rockchip,rk3366-tsadc
> > +              - rockchip,rk3399-tsadc
> > +              - rockchip,rk3568-tsadc
> > +    then:
> > +      required:
> > +        - rockchip,grf
> > +    else:
> > +      properties:
> > +        rockchip,grf: false
> >    - if:
> >        not:
> >          properties:
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.50.1
> >

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

Posted by Conor Dooley 1 week, 5 days ago

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 08:35:12PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 08:48:23PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
> > > platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal monitoring
> > > and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.
> > 
> > I am assuming that "needing it" means that it was actually mandatory but
> > the binding was just missing the required required entry. If so
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> I just noticed, that I never replied: The GRF configuration is
> required for proper functionality as far as I can tell. Technically
> it might be skipped, if the bootloader already configured the
> registers correctly. but I don't think this is something anyone wants
> to rely on and with the same argument we could describe almost any
> resource as optional :) The upstream kernel DT always had the GRF
> specified for these platforms (and thus most likely has never been
> tested without it).

Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

(ik I gave it already, but for clarity)