Re: [RFC] the generic thermal layer enhancement

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54:51AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On 三, 2012-05-30 at 13:50 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The existing algorithm provides a generic mechanism for 
> > balancing performance and thermal output, with the only requirement 
> > being that the platform provide constants that represent the heating and 
> > cooling properties of the system.
> > 
> I'm not sure if this could work on their platforms. So I'm just looking
> for an easier way to handle this, i.e. make generic thermal layer
> simple, and provide the flexibility for platform drivers to do their own
> tricks.

If it's not possible for a platform to use the existing generic approach 
then we should certainly provide a way for them to handle that, but 
first I'd like to see evidence that it's impossible for them to use the 
existing generic approach. This kind of conversation is better with real 
world examples :)

> > > G4. Multiple passive trip points
> > 
> > It would be good to have an explanation of the use case here. If it's 
> > acceptable for the device to be at the lower passive trip point, why are 
> > we slowing it down at all?
> > 
> acceptable does not equal comfortable?
> Say, I'd like to use the computer at 30C skin temperature.
> I'm okay with the temperature at 50C, but it would be nice if it can be
> lower, even if the system would be slower, but not too slow (T-state).
> If the temperature is higher than 60, it is not usable for me, I'll wait
> for a while, the system can do everything they want do cool the system
> down (but hibernate/shutdown would be not a good idea at this time
> because it is hot enough for some hardware damage).

Ok, that seems reasonable.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm