Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: update the thermal zones for RK3399 SoCs

Heiko Stuebner
2017-07-22T21:48:37Z

Hi Caesar,

Am Montag, 17. Juli 2017, 16:14:31 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.
>
> Also, this patch supported the dynamic-power-coefficient/sustainable_power
> and GPU's power model for needed parameters with thermal IPA.
>
> The Thermal power allocator governor works optimatly with two passive trip
> points, for the better performance we will use the trip-point0 with 70
> degree above which the governor control starts operating and trip-point1
> with 85 degree is the target temperature by controlling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - foo@ will produce warnings when used without reg property.
> - update the commit to explain the two passive trip points changed.
>
> 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 77d67cb..6d8a5eb 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>;

Adjusting the coefficients should be a separate patch and the
commit message should explain how they were calculated and
why they are the exacter ones over the old values.

> };
> };
>
> @@ -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-point0 {
> temperature = <70000>;
> hysteresis = <2000>;
> type = "passive";
> };
> - cpu_alert1: cpu_alert1 {
> - temperature = <75000>;
> + target: trip-point1 {
> + temperature = <85000>;
> 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>;

still both maps use &target as trip point. Is that intentional
and if so, why is the &threshold trip point never referenced?

> 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>;
> 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>;
> - };
> - };
> };
> };
>
> @@ -1451,8 +1438,17 @@
> <GIC_SPI 21 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> interrupt-names = "gpu", "job", "mmu";
> clocks = <&cru ACLK_GPU>;
> + #cooling-cells = <2>;
> power-domains = <&power RK3399_PD_GPU>;
> status = "disabled";
> +
> + gpu_power_model: power_model {
> + compatible = "arm,mali-simple-power-model";
> + static-coefficient = <1079403>;
> + dynamic-coefficient = <977>;
> + ts = <32000 4700 (-80) 2>;
> + thermal-zone = "gpu-thermal";
> + };

You might want to have the gpu thermal work without the
power-model-thingy for now, so most likely just drop that
gpu-related change for now.

Heiko