Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: update the thermal zones for RK3399 SoCs

Heiko Stuebner
2017-07-12T18:44:58Z

Hi Caesar,

Am Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 14:29:30 CEST schrieb Caesar Wang:
> As RK3399 had used the Power allocator thermal governor by default,
> enabled this to manage thermals by dynamically allocating and limiting
> power to devices.

Does this still run with other thermal governors? The devicetree describes
the hardware, but should not mandate or exclude specific implementations.

> Also, this patch supported the dynamic-power-coefficient/sustainable_power
> and GPU's power model for needed parameters with thermal IPA.

As written below, this doesn't look like a reviewed binding (otherwise
please point me to the binding patch), but even if it is a real binding
it should get its separate patch.

> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>
>
> ---
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 62 +++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> index 8c6438b..139f58c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
> enable-method = "psci";
> #cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
> clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
> - dynamic-power-coefficient = <100>;
> + dynamic-power-coefficient = <436>;
> };
>
> cpu_b1: cpu@101 {
> @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
> reg = <0x0 0x101>;
> enable-method = "psci";
> clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
> - dynamic-power-coefficient = <100>;
> + dynamic-power-coefficient = <436>;
> };
> };
>
> @@ -690,24 +690,25 @@
> };
>
> thermal_zones: thermal-zones {
> - cpu_thermal: cpu {
> + soc_thermal: soc-thermal {
> polling-delay-passive = <100>;
> polling-delay = <1000>;
> + sustainable-power = <1000>;
>
> thermal-sensors = <&tsadc 0>;
>
> trips {
> - cpu_alert0: cpu_alert0 {
> + threshold: trip-point@0 {

foo@0 will produce warnings when used without reg property. Also,
why all that renaming, the previous names sounded fine to me.

> temperature = <70000>;
> hysteresis = <2000>;
> type = "passive";
> };
> - cpu_alert1: cpu_alert1 {
> - temperature = <75000>;
> + target: trip-point@1 {
> + temperature = <85000>;

When raising the target-temperature to 85 degrees I really
do expect some sort of reassurement in the commit message
why that is really safe - especially when the old limit was 10 degrees
lower.

> hysteresis = <2000>;
> type = "passive";
> };
> - cpu_crit: cpu_crit {
> + soc_crit: soc-crit {
> temperature = <95000>;
> hysteresis = <2000>;
> type = "critical";
> @@ -716,45 +717,31 @@
>
> cooling-maps {
> map0 {
> - trip = <&cpu_alert0>;
> + trip = <&target>;
> cooling-device =
> - <&cpu_b0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + <&cpu_l0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + contribution = <4096>;
> };
> map1 {
> - trip = <&cpu_alert1>;
> + trip = <&target>;

Is it correct to use the _same_ trip point all the time? ... what about
the threshold and soc_crit ones?

> cooling-device =
> - <&cpu_l0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>,
> <&cpu_b0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + contribution = <1024>;
> + };
> + map2 {
> + trip = <&target>;
> + cooling-device =
> + <&gpu THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + contribution = <4096>;
> };
> };
> };
>
> - gpu_thermal: gpu {
> + gpu_thermal: gpu-thermal {
> polling-delay-passive = <100>;
> polling-delay = <1000>;
>
> thermal-sensors = <&tsadc 1>;
> -
> - trips {
> - gpu_alert0: gpu_alert0 {
> - temperature = <75000>;
> - hysteresis = <2000>;
> - type = "passive";
> - };
> - gpu_crit: gpu_crit {
> - temperature = <95000>;
> - hysteresis = <2000>;
> - type = "critical";
> - };
> - };
> -
> - cooling-maps {
> - map0 {
> - trip = <&gpu_alert0>;
> - cooling-device =
> - <&cpu_b0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> - };
> - };
> };
> };
>
> @@ -1455,8 +1442,17 @@
> interrupt-names = "GPU", "JOB", "MMU";
> clocks = <&cru ACLK_GPU>;
> clock-names = "clk_mali";
> + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> power-domains = <&power RK3399_PD_GPU>;
> status = "disabled";
> +
> + gpu_power_model: power_model {
> + compatible = "arm,mali-simple-power-model";

Is this binding documented / reviewed somewhere? Because it looks
quite suspcicious :-) .

Heiko

> + static-coefficient = <1079403>;
> + dynamic-coefficient = <977>;
> + ts = <32000 4700 (-80) 2>;
> + thermal-zone = "gpu-thermal";
> + };
> };
>
> pinctrl: pinctrl {
>