Hi Rob, On 30/03/2020 00:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Some devices are not able to cool down by reducing their voltage / > frequency because it could be not available or the system does not > allow voltage scaling. In this configuration, it is not possible to > use this strategy and the idle injection cooling device can be used > instead. > > One idle cooling device is now present for the CPU as implemented by > the combination of the idle injection framework belonging to the power > capping framework and the thermal cooling device. The missing part is > the DT binding providing a way to describe how the cooling device will > work on the system. > > A first iteration was done by making the cooling device to point to > the idle state. Unfortunately it does not make sense because it would > need to duplicate the idle state description for each CPU in order to > have a different phandle and make the thermal internal framework > happy. > > It was proposed to add an cooling-cells to <3>, unfortunately the > thermal framework is expecting a value of <2> as stated by the > documentation and it is not possible from the cooling device generic > code to loop this third value to the back end cooling device. > > Another proposal was to add a child 'thermal-idle' node as the SCMI > does. This approach allows to have a self-contained configuration for > the idle cooling device without colliding with the cpufreq cooling > device which is based on the CPU node. In addition, it allows to have > the cpufreq cooling device and the idle cooling device to co-exist > together as showed in the example. The other patches of the series are acked-by. Do you think this patch is fine? I would like to apply the series. Thanks -- Daniel [ ... ] -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
