On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:45 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:15:33PM -0800, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Hi Amit,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:30:55AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > 75 degrees is too aggressive for throttling the CPU. After speaking to
> > > Qualcomm engineers, increase it to 95 degrees.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 16 ++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > index c27cbd3bcb0a..29e823b0caf4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > @@ -1692,7 +1692,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert0: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1713,7 +1713,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert1: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1734,7 +1734,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert2: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1755,7 +1755,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert3: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1776,7 +1776,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert4: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1797,7 +1797,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert5: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1818,7 +1818,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert6: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> > > @@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@
> > >
> > > trips {
> > > cpu_alert7: trip0 {
> > > - temperature = <75000>;
> > > + temperature = <95000>;
> > > hysteresis = <2000>;
> > > type = "passive";
> > > };
> >
> > The change itself looks good to me, however I wonder if it would be
> > worth to eliminate redundancy and merge the current 8 thermal zones
> > into 2, one for the Silver and one for the Gold cluster (as done by
> > http://crrev.com/c/1381752). There is a single cooling device for
> > each cluster, so it's not clear to me if there is any gain from having
> > a separate thermal zone for each CPU. If it is important to monitor
> > the temperatures of the individual cores this can still be done by
> > configuring the thermal zone of the cluster with multiple thermal
> > sensors.
>
> I see your idea is to have a cooling device per CPU ("arm64: dts:
> sdm845: wireup the thermal trip points to cpufreq" /
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1030742/), however that
> doesn't work as intended. Only two cpufreq 'devices' are created,
> one for CPU0 and one for CPU4. In consequence cpufreq->ready() only
> runs for these cores and only two cooling devices are
> registered. Since the cores of a cluster all run at the same
> frequency I also doubt if having multiple cooling devices would
> bring any benefits.
I actually only intended for two cooling devices - one for each
frequency domain. I'll clarify it better in the patch description.
