On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:45 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Am 07.10.2019 um 17:11 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:12 AM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 9:38 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Am 14.09.2019 um 15:42 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 4:20 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 13.09.2019 um 17:37 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The OMAP3530, AM3517 and DM3730 all show thresholds of 90C and 105C
> >>>>>> depending on commercial or industrial temperature ratings. This
> >>>>>> patch expands the thermal information to the limits of 90 and 105
> >>>>>> for alert and critical.
> >>>>>>
> >
> > Tom / anyone from TI,
> >
> > I am going to rebase this patch from the current 5.4-RC branch, remove
> > the AM3517 references, and leave the throttling only applicable to
> > omap34xx and 36xx (like it is now), and remove the RFC. Before I do
> > that, I was hoping for some feedback on whether or not there is a
> > reason to not do this while acknowledging the thermal sensor isn't
> > very accurate.
>
> I wonder if there is a more precise definition what "isn't very accurate"
> means?
That's what I was trying to get by asking TI for feedback.
>
> Is it just because the TI_BANDGAP_FEATURE_UNRELIABLE bit is set in
> the driver and we assume that it is right?
The bandgap sensor is disabled by default and, when enabled, it throws
a comment saying 'You've been warned' so I mostly want to acknowledge
that in the patch.
>
> Of course the "junction temperature" (TJ) is not well defined (at which
> edge? in which area?) and the bandgap sensor can only report a single point
> of the die. So e.g. the GPU or the NEON unit may be hotter or cooler.
I look forward to running the GPU again. ;-)
>
> And, the bandgap sensor + ADC is unlikely to be well calibrated to
> 0.1°C precision.
>
> But in my experiments there seems to be not much noise and values rise
> or fall monotonic according to expectations of processor load.
>
> So a report of 90°C may not be exactly 90°C and some parts of the SoC
> may be hotter.
>
> I would also assume that the TJ limits of 90°C have some safety margin
> but there seems to be no information in the data sheet.
>
> So, IMHO an "unreliable" bandgap sensor is better than no sensor and
> no trips / cooling maps.
I completely agree.
>
> One more thing is with the omap3 bandgap sensor (driver?). It appears to
> report the value of the previous measurement. So unless it is regularily
> polled (like cpufreq seems to do) it will report outdated values. The
> first read hours after boot may report the value during probe while booting.
>
> This is also a source of missing accuracy of course. But I haven't
> investigated this (can only be tested if thermal management is turned
> off) because I think it has no practical influence if cpufreq is polling.
>
> >
> > Does anyone have any objections to this?
> >
> > Other than the omap mailing list, are there other lists that should be CC'd?
> >
> > adam
> >
> >>>>>> For boards who never use industrial temperatures, these can be
> >>>>>> changed on their respective device trees with something like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> &cpu_alert0 {
> >>>>>> temperature = <85000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> &cpu_crit {
> >>>>>> temperature = <90000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> V2: Change the CPU reference to &cpu instead of &cpu0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>>>>> index 235ecfd61e2d..dfbd0cb0b00b 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>>>>> @@ -17,4 +17,25 @@ cpu_thermal: cpu_thermal {
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /* sensor ID */
> >>>>>> thermal-sensors = <&bandgap 0>;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + cpu_trips: trips {
> >>>>>> + cpu_alert0: cpu_alert {
> >>>>>> + temperature = <90000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> + type = "passive";
> >>>>>> + };
> >>>>>> + cpu_crit: cpu_crit {
> >>>>>> + temperature = <105000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>>>>> + type = "critical";
> >>>>>> + };
> >>>>>> + };
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + cpu_cooling_maps: cooling-maps {
> >>>>>> + map0 {
> >>>>>> + trip = <&cpu_alert0>;
> >>>>>> + cooling-device =
> >>>>>> + <&cpu THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> >>>>>> + };
> >>>>>> + };
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.17.1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is my test log (GTA04A5 with DM3730CBP100).
> >>>>> "high-load" script is driving the NEON to full power
> >>>>> and would report calculation errors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no noise visible in the bandgap sensor data
> >>>>> induced by power supply fluctuations (log shows system
> >>>>> voltage while charging).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Great data!
> >>>>
> >>>>> root@letux:~# ./high-load -n2
> >>>>> 100% load stress test for 1 cores running ./neon_loop2
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:50 UTC 2019 65° 4111mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:50 UTC 2019 67° 4005mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:52 UTC 2019 68° 4000mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:53 UTC 2019 68° 4000mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:55 UTC 2019 72° 3976mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:56 UTC 2019 72° 4023mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:57 UTC 2019 72° 3900mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:05:59 UTC 2019 73° 4029mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:00 UTC 2019 73° 3988mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:01 UTC 2019 73° 4005mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:03 UTC 2019 73° 4011mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:04 UTC 2019 73° 4117mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:06 UTC 2019 73° 4005mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:07 UTC 2019 75° 3994mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:08 UTC 2019 75° 3970mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:09 UTC 2019 75° 4046mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:11 UTC 2019 75° 4005mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:12 UTC 2019 75° 4023mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:14 UTC 2019 75° 3970mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:15 UTC 2019 75° 4011mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:16 UTC 2019 77° 4017mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:18 UTC 2019 77° 3994mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:19 UTC 2019 77° 3994mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:20 UTC 2019 77° 3988mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:22 UTC 2019 77° 4023mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:23 UTC 2019 77° 4023mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:24 UTC 2019 78° 4005mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:26 UTC 2019 78° 4105mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:27 UTC 2019 78° 4011mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:28 UTC 2019 78° 3994mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:06:30 UTC 2019 78° 4123mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:09:57 UTC 2019 88° 4082mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:09:59 UTC 2019 88° 4164mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:00 UTC 2019 88° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:01 UTC 2019 88° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:03 UTC 2019 88° 4082mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:04 UTC 2019 88° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:06 UTC 2019 88° 4146mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:07 UTC 2019 88° 4041mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:08 UTC 2019 88° 4035mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:10 UTC 2019 88° 4052mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:11 UTC 2019 88° 4087mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:12 UTC 2019 88° 4152mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:14 UTC 2019 88° 4070mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:15 UTC 2019 88° 4064mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:17 UTC 2019 88° 4170mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:18 UTC 2019 88° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:19 UTC 2019 88° 4187mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:21 UTC 2019 88° 4093mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:22 UTC 2019 88° 4087mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:23 UTC 2019 90° 4070mV 1000MHz
> >>>>
> >>>> Should we be a little more conservative? Without knowing the
> >>>> accuracy, i believe we do not want to run at 800 or 1GHz at 90C, so if
> >>>> we made this value 89 instead of 90, we would throttle a little more
> >>>> conservatively.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the OMAP5 also defines exactly 100°C in the device tree.
> >>>
> >>> I would assume that the badgap sensor accuracy is so that it
> >>> never reports less than the real temperature. So if we
> >>> throttle at reported 90° TJ is likely lower.
> >>>
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:25 UTC 2019 88° 4123mV 800MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:26 UTC 2019 88° 4064mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:28 UTC 2019 90° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>
> >>>> Again here, I interpret the data sheet correctly, we're technically out of spec
> >>>
> >>> I read the data sheet as if 90°C at OPP1G is still within spec.
> >>> 91 would be obviously outside (if bandgap sensor is precise).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:29 UTC 2019 88° 4076mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:30 UTC 2019 88° 4064mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:32 UTC 2019 88° 4117mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:33 UTC 2019 88° 4105mV 800MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:34 UTC 2019 88° 4070mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:36 UTC 2019 88° 4076mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:37 UTC 2019 88° 4087mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:39 UTC 2019 88° 4017mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:40 UTC 2019 88° 4093mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:41 UTC 2019 88° 4058mV 800MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:42 UTC 2019 88° 4035mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:44 UTC 2019 90° 4058mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:45 UTC 2019 88° 4064mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:47 UTC 2019 88° 4064mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:48 UTC 2019 88° 4029mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> Sat Sep 14 09:10:50 UTC 2019 90° 4046mV 1000MHz
> >>>>> ^Ckill 4680
> >>>>> root@letux:~# cpufreq-info
> >>>>> cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
> >>>>> Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, please.
> >>>>> analyzing CPU 0:
> >>>>> driver: cpufreq-dt
> >>>>> CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
> >>>>> CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
> >>>>> maximum transition latency: 300 us.
> >>>>> hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz
> >>>>> available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz
> >>>>> available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance
> >>>>> current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz.
> >>>>> The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
> >>>>> within this range.
> >>>>> current CPU frequency is 600 MHz (asserted by call to hardware).
> >>>>> cpufreq stats: 300 MHz:22.81%, 600 MHz:2.50%, 800 MHz:2.10%, 1000 MHz:72.59% (1563)
> >>>>> root@letux:~#
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So OPP is reduced if bandgap sensor reports >= 90°C
> >>>>> which almost immediately makes the temperature
> >>>>> go down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No operational hickups were observed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Surface temperature of the PoP chip did rise to
> >>>>> approx. 53°C during this test.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tested-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # on GTA04A5 with dm3730cbp100
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> BTW: this patch (set) is even independent of my 1GHz OPP patches.
> >>> Should also work with OPP-v1 definitions so that maintainers can
> >>> decide which one to apply first.
> >>
> >> If I am going integrate the cooling references into &cpu node, I'll
> >> probably base it on your work since the cooling isn't really that
> >> important until we exceed 800MHz. If I do it on the current linux
> >> master or omap for-next branch, it may not apply cleanly.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It is just more difficult to reach TJ of 90°C without 1GHz.
> >>
> >> If it even does at all without external influences.
> >>
> >> adam
> >>>
> >>> BR,
> >>> Nikolaus
> >>>
>
