Hi Roger,
I have some doubts, please see below.
On 02/02/2023 13:41, Roger Lu wrote:
Some extreme test environment may keep IC temperature very low or very high
during system boot stage. For stability concern, we add thermal voltage
compenstation if needed no matter svs bank phase is in init02 or mon mode.
Signed-off-by: Roger Lu <roger.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c | 17 +++++++++--------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c
index 299f580847bd..e104866d1ab5 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static int svs_adjust_pm_opp_volts(struct svs_bank *svsb)
}
/* Get thermal effect */
- if (svsb->phase == SVSB_PHASE_MON) {
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(svsb->tzd)) {
ret = thermal_zone_get_temp(svsb->tzd, &tzone_temp);
if (ret || (svsb->temp > SVSB_TEMP_UPPER_BOUND &&
svsb->temp < SVSB_TEMP_LOWER_BOUND)) {
@@ -573,7 +573,8 @@ static int svs_adjust_pm_opp_volts(struct svs_bank *svsb)
temp_voffset += svsb->tzone_ltemp_voffset;
/* 2-line bank update all opp volts when running mon mode */
- if (svsb->type == SVSB_HIGH || svsb->type == SVSB_LOW) {
+ if (svsb->phase == SVSB_PHASE_MON && (svsb->type == SVSB_HIGH ||
+ svsb->type == SVSB_LOW)) {
opp_start = 0;
opp_stop = svsb->opp_count;
}
@@ -589,11 +590,6 @@ static int svs_adjust_pm_opp_volts(struct svs_bank *svsb)
/* do nothing */
goto unlock_mutex;
case SVSB_PHASE_INIT02:
- svsb_volt = max(svsb->volt[i], svsb->vmin);
- opp_volt = svs_bank_volt_to_opp_volt(svsb_volt,
- svsb->volt_step,
- svsb->volt_base);
- break;
case SVSB_PHASE_MON:
svsb_volt = max(svsb->volt[i] + temp_voffset, svsb->vmin);
opp_volt = svs_bank_volt_to_opp_volt(svsb_volt,
@@ -1683,7 +1679,7 @@ static int svs_bank_resource_setup(struct svs_platform *svsp)
}
}
- if (svsb->mode_support & SVSB_MODE_MON) {
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(svsb->tzone_name)) {
svsb->tzd = thermal_zone_get_zone_by_name(svsb->tzone_name);
if (IS_ERR(svsb->tzd)) {
dev_err(svsb->dev, "cannot get \"%s\" thermal zone\n",
@@ -2127,6 +2123,7 @@ static struct svs_bank svs_mt8192_banks[] = {
.type = SVSB_LOW,
.set_freq_pct = svs_set_bank_freq_pct_v3,
.get_volts = svs_get_bank_volts_v3,
+ .tzone_name = "gpu1",
.volt_flags = SVSB_REMOVE_DVTFIXED_VOLT,
.mode_support = SVSB_MODE_INIT02,
.opp_count = MAX_OPP_ENTRIES,
@@ -2144,6 +2141,10 @@ static struct svs_bank svs_mt8192_banks[] = {
.core_sel = 0x0fff0100,
.int_st = BIT(0),
.ctl0 = 0x00540003,
+ .tzone_htemp = 85000,
+ .tzone_htemp_voffset = 0,
+ .tzone_ltemp = 25000,
+ .tzone_ltemp_voffset = 7,
Which is the exact same tzone then in the other bank. Which brings me to a good
point:
Is the tzone bank specific or the same for all banks?
At least for mt8192 they are not. I suppose with this change to the code mt8183
could take advantage of this on all it's banks as well. In that case, can we
start to restructure the struct svs_bank to only have the tzone values declared
once?
Background is that I'm very unhappy with the svs_bank data strucutre. It seems
like a "throw it all in here". It should be structured for functional parts of
the banks. Maybe using structs, maybe unions where possible. In any case having
a flat struct of over 50 members isn't really what we want.
Regards,
Matthias
},
{
.sw_id = SVSB_GPU,
