lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: update sustainable-power with abstract scale
From
Date
Hi Doug,

On 10/2/20 3:31 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:45 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Update the documentation for the binding 'sustainable-power' and allow
>> to provide values in an abstract scale. It is required when the cooling
>> devices use an abstract scale for their power values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml | 13 +++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml
>> index 3ec9cc87ec50..4d8f2e37d1e6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml
>> @@ -99,10 +99,15 @@ patternProperties:
>> sustainable-power:
>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>> description:
>> - An estimate of the sustainable power (in mW) that this thermal zone
>> - can dissipate at the desired control temperature. For reference, the
>> - sustainable power of a 4-inch phone is typically 2000mW, while on a
>> - 10-inch tablet is around 4500mW.
>> + An estimate of the sustainable power (in mW or in an abstract scale)
>> + that this thermal zone can dissipate at the desired control
>> + temperature. For reference, the sustainable power of a 4-inch phone
>> + is typically 2000mW, while on a 10-inch tablet is around 4500mW.
>> +
>> + It is possible to express the sustainable power in an abstract
>> + scale. This is the case when the related cooling devices use also
>> + abstract scale to express their power usage. The scale must be
>> + consistent.
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1. If we're going to allow "sustainable-power" to be in abstract
> scale, why not allow "dynamic-power-coefficient" to be in abstract
> scale too? I assume that the whole reason against that originally was
> the idea of device tree purity, but if we're allowing the abstract
> scale here then there seems no reason not to allow it for
> "dynamic-power-coefficient".

With this binding it's a bit more tricky.
I also have to discuss a few things internally. This requirement of
uW/MHz/V^2 makes the code easier also for potential drivers
like GPU (which are going to register the devfreq cooling with EM).

Let me think about it, but for now I would just update these bits.
These are required to proper IPA operation, the dyn.-pow.-coef. is a
nice to have and possible next step.

>
> 2. Is it worth adding some type of indication of what type of units
> "sustainable-power" is represented in? Maybe even a made up unit so
> that you could tell the difference between made up units in the same
> system? I'd envision something like:
>
> sustainable-power-units = "qualcomm,sc7180-bogoWatts"
>
> ...and on the dynamic-power-coefficient side, the same:
>
> dynamic-power-coefficient-units = "qualcomm,sc7180-bogoWatts"
>
> One could imagine someone even later (after devices are widely
> distributed) figuring out translations between these bogoWatts numbers
> and real Watts if someone could come up with a case where it matters.

To figure this out we don't need a new binding.
I think a simple comment in the DT would be enough for this, even e.g.:

sustainable-power = <100> /* bogoWatts */


Thank you for your comments.
BTW, I haven't put your 'Reviewed-by' because I have added this
sustainable-power new stuff in patch 1/3. I will grateful if you
have a look on that.

Regards,
Lukasz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-02 17:13    [W:0.270 / U:4.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site