Re: [Patch v5 2/6] thermal: qcom: Add support for LMh driver

[Daniel Lezcano]

Hi Bjorn,

On 23/08/2021 17:05, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat 21 Aug 02:41 PDT 2021, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Thara,
>>
>> On 09/08/2021 21:16, Thara Gopinath wrote:
>>> Driver enabling various pieces of Limits Management Hardware(LMh) for cpu
>>> cluster0 and cpu cluster1 namely kick starting monitoring of temperature,
>>> current, battery current violations, enabling reliability algorithm and
>>> setting up various temperature limits.
>>>
>>> The following has been explained in the cover letter. I am including this
>>> here so that this remains in the commit message as well.
>>>
>>> LMh is a hardware infrastructure on some Qualcomm SoCs that can enforce
>>> temperature and current limits as programmed by software for certain IPs
>>> like CPU. On many newer LMh is configured by firmware/TZ and no programming
>>> is needed from the kernel side. But on certain SoCs like sdm845 the
>>> firmware does not do a complete programming of the h/w. On such soc's
>>> kernel software has to explicitly set up the temperature limits and turn on
>>> various monitoring and enforcing algorithms on the hardware.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@xxxxxxxx> # Lenovo Yoga C630
>>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Is it possible to have an option to disable/enable the LMh driver at
>> runtime, for instance with a module parameter ?
>>
> 
> Are you referring to being able to disable the hardware throttling, or
> the driver's changes to thermal pressure?

The former.

> I'm not aware of any way to disable the hardware. I do remember that
> there was some experiments done (with a hacked up boot chain) early on
> and iirc it was concluded that it's not a good idea.

My objective was to test the board with the thermal framework handling
the mitigation instead of the hardware.

I guess I can set the hardware temperature higher than the thermal zone
temperature.

On which sensor the lmh does refer to ? The cluster one ?

(by the way the thermal zone temperatures per core are lower by 5°C than
the hardware mitigation ? is it done on purpose ?)

> Either way, if there is a way and there is a use for it, we can always
> add such parameter incrementally. So I suggest that we merge this as is.

Yes, that was for my information. It is already merged.

Thanks

  -- Daniel

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog