On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:16:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10-01-19, 10:42, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer, there's always something new to learn!
> >
> > Ok, so the policy CPU and hence the CPU registered as cooling
> > device may vary. I understand that this requires to list all possible
> > cooling devices,
>
> I won't say that I changed DT because of a design issue with kernel,
> rather the DT shall be complete by itself and that's why that change
> was made.
fair enough
> And then we can have more things going on. For example with cpuidle
> cooling, we can individually control each CPU (and force idle on that)
> even if all CPUs are part of the same freq-domain. Each CPU shall
> expose its capabilities.
Just to gain a better understanding: is cpuidle cooling already
available for arm64 (or is there a patch set)? I came across the
relatively new idle injecting framework but it seems currently the
only user is the Intel powerclamp driver.
> > even though only one will be active at any given
> > time. However I wonder if we could change this:
>
> I won't say it that way. I see it as all the CPUs are active during a
> cooling state, i.e. they are all participating.
agreed, I was referring to the CPU cooling device, which (without
cpuidle injection) could be considered a single device per freq domain.
> > For device tree based platform the above implies that cooling maps
> > must include a list of all possible cooling devices of a frequency
> > domain, even though only one of them will exist at any given time.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > 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>;
>
> This is the right thing to do hardware description wise, no matter
> what the kernel does.
Not sure I would call it a hardware description. I'd say we pretend
the thermal configuration is a hardware description so the DT folks
don't yell at us ;-) IMO a CPU cooling device is an abstraction, I
think there is no such IP block on most systems.
It seems with cpuidle injection CPUs can perform cooling actions
individually, with that I agree that representing them as individual
cooling devices in the DT makes sense. Without that a cooling device
per freq domain would seem a resonable abstraction.
One of the reasons I dislike the above list of cooling devices is that
it is repeated for different thermal-zone/cooling-maps, but I guess
we have to live with that, would be nice if the DT would allow to do
something like this:
thermal-zones {
cooling_maps_fd0 : 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>;
};
cpu0-thermal {
...
cooling-maps = @cooling_maps_fd0;
...
};
cpu1-thermal {
...
cooling-maps = @cooling_maps_fd0;
...
};
...
};
Cheers
Matthias
