Hi, On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:26 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 8:17 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:24 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:40 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/20 4:47 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 8:13 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Doug, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 10/2/20 3:31 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:45 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Update the documentation for the binding 'sustainable-power' and allow > > > > > >>>> to provide values in an abstract scale. It is required when the cooling > > > > > >>>> devices use an abstract scale for their power values. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> > > > > > >>>> --- > > > > > >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml | 13 +++++++++---- > > > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml > > > > > >>>> index 3ec9cc87ec50..4d8f2e37d1e6 100644 > > > > > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml > > > > > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal-zones.yaml > > > > > >>>> @@ -99,10 +99,15 @@ patternProperties: > > > > > >>>> sustainable-power: > > > > > >>>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > > > > >>>> description: > > > > > >>>> - An estimate of the sustainable power (in mW) that this thermal zone > > > > > >>>> - can dissipate at the desired control temperature. For reference, the > > > > > >>>> - sustainable power of a 4-inch phone is typically 2000mW, while on a > > > > > >>>> - 10-inch tablet is around 4500mW. > > > > > >>>> + An estimate of the sustainable power (in mW or in an abstract scale) > > > > > >>>> + that this thermal zone can dissipate at the desired control > > > > > >>>> + temperature. For reference, the sustainable power of a 4-inch phone > > > > > >>>> + is typically 2000mW, while on a 10-inch tablet is around 4500mW. > > > > > >>>> + > > > > > >>>> + It is possible to express the sustainable power in an abstract > > > > > >>>> + scale. This is the case when the related cooling devices use also > > > > > >>>> + abstract scale to express their power usage. The scale must be > > > > > >>>> + consistent. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Two thoughts: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 1. If we're going to allow "sustainable-power" to be in abstract > > > > > >>> scale, why not allow "dynamic-power-coefficient" to be in abstract > > > > > >>> scale too? I assume that the whole reason against that originally was > > > > > >>> the idea of device tree purity, but if we're allowing the abstract > > > > > >>> scale here then there seems no reason not to allow it for > > > > > >>> "dynamic-power-coefficient". > > > > > >> > > > > > >> With this binding it's a bit more tricky. > > > > > >> I also have to discuss a few things internally. This requirement of > > > > > >> uW/MHz/V^2 makes the code easier also for potential drivers > > > > > >> like GPU (which are going to register the devfreq cooling with EM). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Let me think about it, but for now I would just update these bits. > > > > > >> These are required to proper IPA operation, the dyn.-pow.-coef. is a > > > > > >> nice to have and possible next step. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the problem is that Rajendra is currently planning to remove > > > > > > all the "dynamic-power-coefficient" values from device tree right now > > > > > > and move them to the source code because the numbers we currently have > > > > > > in the device tree _are_ in abstract scale and thus violate the > > > > > > bindings. Moving this to source code won't help us get to more real > > > > > > power numbers (since it'll still be abstract scale), it'll just be > > > > > > pure churn. If we're OK with the abstract scale in general then we > > > > > > should allow it everywhere and not add churn for no reason. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC he is still going to use the Energy Model, but with different > > > > > registration function. We have such a driver: scmi-cpufreq.c, which > > > > > uses em_dev_register_perf_domain(). He can still use EM, EAS, IPA > > > > > not violating anything. > > > > > > > > Right. He's going to take the exact same "abstract scale" numbers > > > > that he has today and take them out of device tree and put them in the > > > > cpufreq driver. Doing so magically makes it so that he's not > > > > violating anything since "abstract scale" is not currently allowed in > > > > device tree but is allowed in the cpufreq driver. I'm not saying that > > > > he's doing anything wrong, I'm just saying that it's pointless churn. > > > > If we're OK with "abstract scale" in one place in the device tree we > > > > should be OK with it everywhere in the device tree. Then Rajendra > > > > wouldn't need his patch at all and he could leave his numbers in the > > > > device tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real problem that we want to address is with sustainable-power in > > > > > IPA. It is used in power budget calculation and if the devices operate > > > > > in abstract scale, then there is an issue. > > > > > There are two options to get that value: > > > > > 1. from DT, which can have optimized value, stored by OEM engineer > > > > > 2. from IPA estimation code, which just calculates it as a sum of > > > > > minimum OPP power for each cooling device. > > > > > > > > > > The 2nd option might not be the best for a platform, so vendor/OEM > > > > > engineer might want to provide a better value in DT -> 1st option. > > > > > This is currently against the binding description and I have to fix it. > > > > > > > > Right, things are already broken today because a SoC vendor could > > > > (without violating any rules) provide their SoC core > > > > "dynamic-power-coefficient" in "abstract scale" in code and there > > > > would be no way to for a board to (without violating DT bindings) > > > > specify a "sustainable-power". ...so, in that sense, your patch does > > > > provide a benefit even if we don't make any changes to the rules for > > > > "sustainable-power". All I'm saying is that if these new rules for > > > > allowing an abstract scale for "sustainable-power" in the device tree > > > > are OK that it should _also_ be OK to add new rules to allow an > > > > abstract scale for "dynamic-power-coefficient". > > > > > > Didn't we beat this one to death with "dynamic-power-coefficient"? > > > > We did? Where / when? > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/1448288921-30307-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@xxxxxxx/ Thanks for the reference. > > I'm not sure I was involved, but right now > > both "sustainable-power" and "dynamic-power-coefficient" are still > > defined in the device tree to be in real units, not abstract scale. > > Are you saying that we beat it to death and decided that it needed to > > be in real units, or we beat it to death and decided that abstract > > scale was OK and we just didn't put it in the bindings? > > The former. OK. So I suppose this is a NAK to Lukasz's patch. It also means that: * The power numbers that landed in the sc7180 devicetree violate what's documented in the bindings. * While Rajendra can fix this by moving the numbers out of devicetree and into code, it doesn't really help us because there will be no way to allow boards to specify their "sustainable-power" in code. * Anyone who is using the "abstract scale" provided by firmware or by code is in the same boat. There's no way for a board to specify "sustainable-power" that will match this "abstract scale" without violating the devicetree bindings. Obviously the easiest way to fix this is to just move everyone off of "abstract scale". If someone else has other bright ideas I'm all ears. > > > That is the abstract scale because I don't think you can really ever > > > measure it > > > > That's debatable. it's not very hard to get reasonable measurements. > > Matthias provided a recipe earlier in the thread. See commit > > ac60c5e33df4 ("ARM: dts: rockchip: Add dynamic-power-coefficient for > > rk3288"). In that case he used a machine that could easily measure > > power on the CPU rail, but if you simply keep all other rails in the > > system constant (and/or run a long enough test), you can easily > > accomplish this by just querying the smart battery in systems. > > Okay, yes, you can measure and then calculate something. But the value > is only meaningful within that platform. There's no standardized test > to run. What the power rails are could be different (e.g. CPU RAMs on > a separate rail and shared). I think in this case the dynamic-power-coefficient is supposed to describe the CPU cores only. Presumably for a given SoC the cores will behave (to a rough approximation) the same from board to board? > > > and because vendors don't want to advertise their absolute > > > power. > > > > That is certainly true, though after a device has shipped it's not > > that hard to measure. > > Can you tell me how to measure the CPU rail on my Pixel3? I've written a script to do this and I'll share it soon. Unfortunately the power consumption of little cores when running at very low frequencies is pretty miniscule and sbs_battery doesn't have that fine of a granularity. I tried running where I spent 10 minutes at each frequency and it was still slightly too noisy. I'll run it overnight where I spend 30 minutes at each frequency and see if my numbers are accurate / consistent. Since I'm running on hardware that hasn't been released to the general public I won't publish my numbers, but I'm hoping my script will be good enough that you should be able to run it on your hardware and get real / consistent numbers. > > > > > >>> 2. Is it worth adding some type of indication of what type of units > > > > > >>> "sustainable-power" is represented in? Maybe even a made up unit so > > > > > >>> that you could tell the difference between made up units in the same > > > > > >>> system? I'd envision something like: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> sustainable-power-units = "qualcomm,sc7180-bogoWatts" > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> ...and on the dynamic-power-coefficient side, the same: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> dynamic-power-coefficient-units = "qualcomm,sc7180-bogoWatts" > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> One could imagine someone even later (after devices are widely > > > > > >>> distributed) figuring out translations between these bogoWatts numbers > > > > > >>> and real Watts if someone could come up with a case where it matters. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> To figure this out we don't need a new binding. > > > > > >> I think a simple comment in the DT would be enough for this, even e.g.: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> sustainable-power = <100> /* bogoWatts */ > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some important differences: > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Your comment is gone when the device tree is compiled. If we > > > > > > actually add a string to the device tree then, in theory, we can add > > > > > > conversions in code (without touching the device tree) down the road. > > > > > > > > > > We don't need code and binding with a bogoscale. It is up to the > > > > > platform integrator to make sure the scale in consistent in all devices. > > > > > Comment in DT is good enough. > > > > > > > > One other nice thing about having the units is that the device tree is > > > > supposed to be more of a "pure" thing, less sullied about what's > > > > convenient and more about a real description of a thing. Presumably > > > > that's why "abstract scale" wasn't allowed originally? In any case, > > > > giving quantifiable units to the number somehow makes it feel less > > > > made up because it's possible to come up with a way to convert it back > > > > to real units. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) I believe there can be more than one abstract scale present in a > > > > > > single device tree, at least in theory. Adding a string allows you to > > > > > > know if you're comparing apples to apples or apples to organges. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO DT is not the place for such abstractions, but Rob might correct me > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > Yup, seems like we're blocked waiting for Rob to chime in unless > > > > someone else has the authority to make the call about how to deal with > > > > "abstract scale" numbers in the device tree. > > > > > > I don't really know nor completely follow the issues. I just get all > > > these PM related bindings piece by piece with everyone solving their > > > own single issue. It's death by 1000 cuts. So my default position is > > > NAK. All the missing pieces and deficiencies can build up until > > > there's a coherent picture (maybe?). > > > > I'm totally confused. NAK on what? NAK on Lukasz's patch? ...or > > Lukasz's patch is totally fine but NAK on also allowing abstract scale > > for 'dynamic-power-coefficient". Or NAK on adding units? NAK on > > something else? > > That's just my rant on PM bindings in general. > 'cpu-performance-dependencies' is another one currently. > > Rob
