Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: pwm-fan overlay for NanoPC-T6

[Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>]

Am Montag, 27. Oktober 2025, 22:15:05 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit schrieb Dragan Simic:
> Hello Alexey,
> 
> On Monday, October 27, 2025 21:56 CET, Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:02 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 7:08 PM Hugh Cole-Baker <sigmaris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 27/10/2025 09:14, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Is there any downside to enabling this unconditionally in the board
> > > >> .dts?
> > > >
> > > > Only that it goes against the principle that the DT should describe the
> > > > hardware; the board .dts would describe a cooling device that doesn't
> > > > actually exist on the base board.
> > >
> > > Having a separate DT overlay is perfectly fine if we want to
> > > describe a board absolutely correctly: if the fan actually isn't
> > > present, the operating system shouldn't be made to think it is
> > > there, especially if there's no fan RPM feedback, which is the
> > > case on almost all Rockchip boards that support a fan.
> > >
> > > Preventing the kernel from managing a non-existent fan might even
> > > save some CPU cycles, ending up producing a bit less heat, which
> > > can only help in passively cooled setups.
> > 
> > Sounds like an overcomplication without real benefit. It's one thing
> > with overlays for functionality that can be software-incompatible
> > depending on whether an external attachment is connected or depending
> > on the type of attachment connected. Here we are looking at a plain
> > 2-pin fan which cannot be software incompatible to anything really
> > (it's not like one could repurpose the fan connector for anything
> > meaningful if a fan is not in use, and noone gets hurt if a PWM output
> > is left running without load).
> > 
> > The CPU cycles spent parsing a slightly larger DTB at boot are likely
> > comparable to those spent activating a PWM output needlessly upon
> > hitting the active cooling trip point, and both are negligible for any
> > practical purpose.
> 
> Hmm, right, I forgot for a moment that the PWM output is generated
> by dedicated hardware, so not many CPU cycles would be wasted.
> 
> BTW, with a fan PWM signal generated by a soft-GPIO output, much
> more CPU cycles would've been saved by omitting the fan definition
> if it isn't present, but that isn't the case here.
> 
> > > However, the practice so far has been to describe the fans in the
> > > main board dts files, if the board provides fan support, regardless
> > > of the fan being present in a particular board setup or not.
> > >
> > > > I guess then in theory, an OS might allow the SoC to reach undesirably high
> > > > temperatures if it's relying on the nonexistent fan to cool it down. But I
> > > > don't think this would be an issue on Linux, at least, in practice.
> > >
> > > We're safe, a thermal runaway isn't going to happen when the fan is
> > > defined in a board DT but actually isn't present.  Thermal CPU and
> > > GPU throttling will prevent the overheating from happening.
> > >
> > > >> Overlays require more user configuration, and not all
> > > >> bootloaders support them directly (e.g. systemd-boot users would
> > > >> struggle). Compiling with overlays enabled also makes .dtb's a lot
> > > >> larger due to added symbols information.
> > > >
> > > > Nowadays (on Debian at least) using overlays is pretty easy, I'm using the
> > > > u-boot-menu package in Debian, I just copy the overlay(s) to /boot/dtbo/ and
> > > > it detects them automatically and adds them to extlinux.conf for u-boot to
> > > > apply.
> > > >
> > > > Couldn't systemd-boot users just use rk3588-nanopc-t6-(lts-)with-fan.dtb as
> > > > their single DT to load, if it doesn't support applying overlays and they
> > > > want to use the fan addon?
> > 
> > Sure, but it's a manual configuration step, where otherwise the kernel
> > would just default to the correct dtb for the board that the firmware
> > told it about. The fan is not discoverable, so the firmware won't ever
> > offer the "-with-fan" variant, meaning users would need to supply it
> > manually in every instance.
> 
> FWIW, the most user-friendly SBC family in the world, Raspberry
> Pi, :) requires manual enabling of the fan on Raspberry Pi 4.
> I haven't researched what's the background for that, perhaps the
> need to keep the GPIO expansion header completely unoccupied by
> default, because the fan attaches to the GPIO header, instead of
> to some dedicated fan connector.
> 
> > > Yes, that's an option.  However, that in general doesn't resolve
> > > the issues arising from systemd-boot users wanting to apply more
> > > than a single DT overlay.
> > >
> > > > FWIW, I haven't noticed any problems with having a larger .dtb (using mainline
> > > > U-Boot to load it) and several other RK3588 boards are also compiled with
> > > > symbols enabled already, and I haven't seen any issues reported with them.
> > >
> > > After thinking a bit about it, I'd support the extraction of fan
> > > definitions into separate DT overlays.  As I wrote above already,
> > > not managing the non-existent fan might actually help a bit with
> > > passively cooled board setups, which is a good enough reason for
> > > me to support separate DT overlays.
> > 
> > Practical benefits sound far fetched here, while forcing users to
> > manually configure something that would have otherwise just worked.
> > Let's see what Heiko thinks.

Personally, I'm more on the less complication side.

I.e. if there is an actual fan-connector on the board we should describe
it as such.

Overlays I see for things where you attach hats to generic pin headers
to create specific functionality on top of a generic interface.

But if the board itself has an actual fan header, it should be described
as such. Because that then _is_ the standard use of that.


Heiko