Re: [PATCH 0/4] thermal: Introduce Qualcomm Thermal Mitigation Device support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:43:08PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 07:00:27PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 18:58, Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 06:00:37PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 17:52, Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 06:26:14PM +0100, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 01/10/2023 16:57, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 05:16:16PM +0100, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> > > > > > > > The Thermal Mitigation Device (TMD) Service is a QMI service that runs
> > > > > > > > on remote subsystems (the modem and DSPs) on Qualcomm SoCs.
> > > > > > > > It exposes various mitigations including passive thermal controls and
> > > > > > > > rail voltage restrictions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This series introduces support for exposing TMDs as cooling devices
> > > > > > > > in the kernel through the thermal framework, using the QMI interface.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Each TMD client is described as a child of the remoteproc node in
> > > > > > > > devicetree. With subnodes for each control.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Daniel expressed concerns in the past aganist representing TMD driver as a
> > > > > > > cooling device since it is not tied to thermal zones and the governors cannot
> > > > > > > use it. Instead he suggested to represent it as a powercap device with thermal
> > > > > > > constraints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mani,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forgive me as I'm not yet super familiar with the thermal subsystem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I understand it, the DT layout here enables each control to be referenced
> > > > > > under the thermal zones, at least this is the approach taken in CAF 4.9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I don't quite understand what you mean, are you saying that using
> > > > > > thermal zones is the wrong approach?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thermal framework expects each thermal zone represented in DT to have atleast
> > > > > one corresponding thermal sensor defined using "thermal-sensors" property. But
> > > > > with TMD, there is no thermal sensor AFAIK.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I understand, no. It is perfectly fine to have 'cooling'
> > > > devices, which react to external thermal monitoring events. I might be
> > > > mistaken, but I think that is the case here, isn't it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is represented as cooling device(s). But I do not see any cognizant way
> > > to plug it with thermal zones i.e., unless TMD itself reports temperature of the
> > > modem, using it as a cooling device for external temperature events doesn't
> > > sound good to me.
> > 
> > Why? We have compute, q6, wlan tsens sensors. So it seems natural to
> > tell CDSP to slow down if compute sensor reports overheating.
> > 
> 
> TMD is for external devices such as PCIe modems as well. Is there a temperature
> sensor for that?
> 

According to the schematics for the SC8280XP CRD sys_therm5 would be the
sensor you're looking for.

Regards,
Bjorn



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux