Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] arm64: dts: sdm845: wireup the thermal trip points to cpufreq
From: Amit Kucheria
Date: Fri Jan 11 2019 - 06:17:30 EST
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:00 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:30:56AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > Since the big and little cpus are in the same frequency domain, use all
> > of them for mitigation in the cooling-map. At the lower trip points we
> > restrict ourselves to throttling only a few OPPs. At higher trip
> > temperatures, allow ourselves to be throttled to any extent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 145 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > index 29e823b0caf4..cd6402a9aa64 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > #include <dt-bindings/reset/qcom,sdm845-aoss.h>
> > #include <dt-bindings/soc/qcom,rpmh-rsc.h>
> > #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sdm845.h>
> > +#include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> >
> > / {
> > interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> > @@ -99,6 +100,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > L2_0: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -114,6 +116,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x100>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_100>;
> > L2_100: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -126,6 +129,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x200>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_200>;
> > L2_200: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -138,6 +142,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x300>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_300>;
> > L2_300: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -150,6 +155,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x400>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_400>;
> > L2_400: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -162,6 +168,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x500>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_500>;
> > L2_500: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -174,6 +181,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x600>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_600>;
> > L2_600: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -186,6 +194,7 @@
> > compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> > reg = <0x0 0x700>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2_700>;
> > L2_700: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "cache";
> > @@ -1703,6 +1712,23 @@
> > type = "critical";
> > };
> > };
> > +
> > + cooling-maps {
> > + map0 {
> > + trip = <&cpu_alert0>;
> > + cooling-device = <&CPU0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT 4>,
> > + <&CPU1 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT 4>,
> > + <&CPU2 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT 4>,
> > + <&CPU3 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT 4>;
> > + };
> > + map1 {
> > + trip = <&cpu_crit0>;
> > + cooling-device = <&CPU0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>,
> > + <&CPU1 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>,
> > + <&CPU2 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>,
> > + <&CPU3 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> > + };
> > + };
>
> Slightly off-topic, buy maybe not so much since we are just starting
> to use the trip points:
>
> Currently we use the naming scheme 'cpu_<type>N' for trip points. I
> anticipate that we're going to add more passive trip points soon, to
> keep the 'power_allocator' thermal governor happy, which expects a
> 'switch_on' and a 'desired_temperature' trip point. With the current
> naming scheme this could become a bit messy. I suggest to change it to
> 'cpuN_<type>[X]', which would allow for something like 'cpuN_alert0'
> and 'cpuN_alert1'.
>
> If you think the change makes sense you can consider to do it within
> this series, I can also send a separate patch once it has landed.
Sure, I can change them to cpuN_alertX format.
> You could also consider to add the additional trip point in this
> series if you agree that it will be needed.
I expect that we'll end up with at least 2 passive trip points but I
don't know what temperature to set the next one at. So let's just go
with 1 passive and 1 critical trip point in this series and you can
send a patch adding more once we've characterised IPA.
> This is not necessarily a call for action, just thinking loudly about
> a closely related topic ;-)
Thanks for the reviews.
Regards,
Amit