Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:39 AM Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi
<manafm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Enable passive polling delay for cpu thermal zone for sc7180. It
> enables periodic thermal zone re-evaluation on post first trip
> temperature violation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi <manafm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi
> index 98050b3..79d0747 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi
> @@ -4355,7 +4355,7 @@
>
> thermal-zones {
> cpu0-thermal {
> - polling-delay-passive = <0>;
> + polling-delay-passive = <50>;
Matthias already landed a similar patch, see:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201111120334.1.Ifc04ea235c3c370e3b21ec3b4d5dead83cc403b4@changeid
I guess the question is whether 50 is better or 250 is better. Is
this just a finger in the wind estimate or do you have data showing
that 50 is better than 250?
-Doug
