Hello Diederik,
On 2024-04-20 19:53, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 April 2024 11:28:09 CEST Dragan Simic wrote:
> Can you rebase this patch set on Heiko's for-next branch [1]?
> And then also fix the ordering of the nodes and the elements within
> those nodes so that they match the current conventions?
Ah, thanks, this is a good reminder about the proposal for the plan
for moving forward, which I promised to send a while ago. :)
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmind/linux-rockchip.git/log/?h=for-next
I build a (Debian) kernel based off 6.9-rc4 + a whole bunch of patches,
including this patch series. I got someone on #debian-arm to try it out
on a
Rock 5B and the dmesg output showed a number of items wrt thermal and
OPP.
Some items that I filtered out from that dmesg output:
[ 3.211716] hwmon hwmon0: temp1_input not attached to any thermal
zone
[ 3.908339] panthor fb000000.gpu: EM: OPP:900000 is inefficient
[ 10.473061] cpu cpu0: EM: OPP:600000 is inefficient
[ 10.473233] energy_model: Accessing cpu4 policy failed
[ 10.585236] rockchip-thermal fec00000.tsadc: Missing rockchip,grf
property
Attached is the full list of items I collected from that dmesg output
which
seem worth investigating.
Maybe useful to investigate when moving forward?
This is a nice report, thanks!
I'm not sure what's going on with the mmc2 issues. Regarding the
hym8563,
hwmon, energy_model and rockchip-spi issues, I'll have a look into them
and come back with an update.
Regarding the multiple "OPP:<frequency> is inefficient" warnings, it's
already on my TO-DO list to perform a detailed (and repeatable) testing.
My suspicion is that declaring the OPPs as inefficient actually isn't
warranted, but we'll see what will be the test results.
