lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] ARM: dts: omap36xx: Enable thermal throttling
From
Date

> Am 13.09.2019 um 17:01 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:24 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 13.09.2019 um 16:05 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>
>>>>> Am 13.09.2019 um 13:07 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>>> + cpu_cooling_maps: cooling-maps {
>>>>>>> + map0 {
>>>>>>> + trip = <&cpu_alert0>;
>>>>>>> + /* Only allow OPP50 and OPP100 */
>>>>>>> + cooling-device = <&cpu 0 1>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> omap4-cpu-thermal.dtsi uses THERMAL_NO_LIMIT constants but I do not
>>>>>> understand their meaning (and how it relates to the opp list).
>>>>>
>>>>> I read through the documentation, but it wasn't completely clear to
>>>>> me. AFAICT, the numbers after &cpu represent the min and max index in
>>>>> the OPP table when the condition is hit.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. It seems to use "cooling state" for those and the first is minimum
>>>> and the last is maximum. Using THERMAL_NO_LIMIT (-1UL) means to have
>>>> no limits.
>>>>
>>>> Since here we use the &cpu node it is likely that the "cooling state"
>>>> is the same as the OPP index currently in use.
>>>>
>>>> I have looked through the .dts which use cpu_crit and the picture is
>>>> not unique...
>>>>
>>>> omap4 seems to only define it
>>>> am57xx has two different grade dtsi files
>>>> dra7 overwrites critical temperature value
>>>> am57xx-beagle defines a gpio to control a fan
>>>
>
> I am going to push a separate but related RFC with 2 patches in the
> series. This new one will setup the alerts and maps without any
> throttling for all omap3's in the first patch. The second patch will
> consolidate the thermal references to omap3.dtsi so omap34, omap36 and
> am35 can all use them without having to duplicate the entries.
>
> It will make the omap36xx changes simpler to manage, because we can
> just modify a portion of the entries instead of having the whole
> table.
>
> Once this parallel RFC gets comments/feedback, I'll re-integrate the
> omap36xx throttling.

Good idea. I have looked over them and they seem to be ok.

>
> adam

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-13 17:10    [W:0.062 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site