On 19/12/2021 19:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 12/18/21 2:11 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Hi Steev,
>>
>> thanks for taking the time to test the series.
>
> My C630 is my daily driver and main computer, so I don't mind testing
> things to improve its usage at all.
>
>
>> <snip>
>> Yes, the module is designed to be loaded only. I did not wanted to add
>> more complexity in the driver as unloading it is not the priority ATM.
>> We need this to be a module in order to load it after the other devices.
> Makes sense, I just wasn't entirely sure if it was on purpose or not.
>>>> + depends on DTPM
>>>> + help
>>>> + Describe the hierarchy for the Dynamic Thermal Power
>>>> + Management tree on this platform. That will create all the
>>>> + power capping capable devices.
>>>> +
>>>> endmenu
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile b/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
>>>> index 70d5de69fd7b..cf38496c3f61 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
>>>> @@ -28,3 +28,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_LLCC) += llcc-qcom.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_RPMHPD) += rpmhpd.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_RPMPD) += rpmpd.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_KRYO_L2_ACCESSORS) += kryo-l2-accessors.o
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_DTPM) += dtpm.o
>> [ ... ]
> I noticed this as well, and was going to ask if it shouldn't be named
> qcom_dtpm, but I don't think it matters since it would be in
> /lib/modules/$kver/kernel/drivers/soc/qcom ?
Right
>>>> +static struct of_device_id __initdata sdm845_dtpm_match_table[] = {
>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845", .data = sdm845_hierarchy },
>>>> + {},
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init sdm845_dtpm_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return dtpm_create_hierarchy(sdm845_dtpm_match_table);
>>>> +}
>>>> +late_initcall(sdm845_dtpm_init);
>>>> +
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Qualcomm DTPM driver");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:dtpm");
>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx");
>>>> +
>>> It does seem to work aside from not being able to modprobe -r the
>>> module. Although I do see
>>>
>>> [ 35.849622] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'sdm845' / 0-0 uW,
>>> [ 35.849652] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'package' / 0-0 uW,
>>> [ 35.849676] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'cpu0-cpufreq' /
>>> 40000-436000 uW,
>>> [ 35.849702] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'cpu4-cpufreq' /
>>> 520000-5828000 uW,
>>> [ 35.849734] dtpm_devfreq: No energy model available for '5000000.gpu'
>>> [ 35.849738] dtpm: Failed to setup '/soc@0/gpu@5000000': -22
>>>
>>> If the devfreq issue with the gpu isn't expected, are we missing
>>> something for the c630?
>> Yes, the energy model is missing for the GPU, very likely the
>> 'dynamic-power-coefficient' property is missing in the gpu section.
>>
>> A quick test could be to add a value like 800. The resulting power
>> numbers will be wrong but it should be possible to act on the
>> performance by using these wrong power numbers.
>>
>> -- Daniel
>>
> So, I'm definitely not the greatest of kernel hackers, just enough
> knowledge to be dangerous and I know how to apply patches properly....
> I'm not able to actually get this working. I've tried adding it with a
> few different numbers, and any time i try to add the d-p-c, I get
>
> Dec 18 15:00:49 limitless kernel: [ 57.394503] adreno 5000000.gpu: EM:
> invalid perf. state: -22
> Dec 18 15:00:49 limitless kernel: [ 57.394515] dtpm_devfreq: No energy
> model available for '5000000.gpu'
> Dec 18 15:00:49 limitless kernel: [ 57.394519] dtpm: Failed to setup
> '/soc@0/gpu@5000000': -22
I've been through the code and I suspect something is missing in the
mainline kernel for devfreq vs energy model. Not related to DTPM actually.
I'll double check if that could be added beside this series
--
<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
