Hi Bjorn, On 23/08/2021 17:05, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Sat 21 Aug 02:41 PDT 2021, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> >> Hi Thara, >> >> On 09/08/2021 21:16, Thara Gopinath wrote: >>> Driver enabling various pieces of Limits Management Hardware(LMh) for cpu >>> cluster0 and cpu cluster1 namely kick starting monitoring of temperature, >>> current, battery current violations, enabling reliability algorithm and >>> setting up various temperature limits. >>> >>> The following has been explained in the cover letter. I am including this >>> here so that this remains in the commit message as well. >>> >>> LMh is a hardware infrastructure on some Qualcomm SoCs that can enforce >>> temperature and current limits as programmed by software for certain IPs >>> like CPU. On many newer LMh is configured by firmware/TZ and no programming >>> is needed from the kernel side. But on certain SoCs like sdm845 the >>> firmware does not do a complete programming of the h/w. On such soc's >>> kernel software has to explicitly set up the temperature limits and turn on >>> various monitoring and enforcing algorithms on the hardware. >>> >>> Tested-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@xxxxxxxx> # Lenovo Yoga C630 >>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Is it possible to have an option to disable/enable the LMh driver at >> runtime, for instance with a module parameter ? >> > > Are you referring to being able to disable the hardware throttling, or > the driver's changes to thermal pressure? The former. > I'm not aware of any way to disable the hardware. I do remember that > there was some experiments done (with a hacked up boot chain) early on > and iirc it was concluded that it's not a good idea. My objective was to test the board with the thermal framework handling the mitigation instead of the hardware. I guess I can set the hardware temperature higher than the thermal zone temperature. On which sensor the lmh does refer to ? The cluster one ? (by the way the thermal zone temperatures per core are lower by 5°C than the hardware mitigation ? is it done on purpose ?) > Either way, if there is a way and there is a use for it, we can always > add such parameter incrementally. So I suggest that we merge this as is. Yes, that was for my information. It is already merged. 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
