On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> * H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [190909 14:57]:
> > Another question that came up by private mail from André was if we
> > should better disable the turbo OPPs of omap34xx and 36xx by default
> > (status = "disabled";) because there are concerns about overheating
> > the chips and we have no thermal regulation like for omap4 & 5.
I thought there was a thermal sensor?
cpu_thermal: cpu_thermal {
polling-delay-passive = <250>; /* milliseconds */
polling-delay = <1000>; /* milliseconds */
coefficients = <0 20000>;
/* sensor ID */
thermal-sensors = <&bandgap 0>;
};
Can this driver somehow notify the cpufreq that we've hit some limit?
I know it's not as accurate as one would like, but even for non-1GHz
versions, having it downclock would be a good thing when running at
extreme temps.
adam
> >
> > But this would mean that every board DTS would have to set it explicitly
> > to "enabled".
>
> Yes I started thinking about that too. I think there is a requirement
> to do the scaling via the voltage processor for the higher modes.
> And there needs to be some way to automatically change to a lower
> OPP in some cases.
>
> For normal OPPs, using the twl regulator directly should be OK.
>
> For the higher modes, maybe we could pass the callback functions
> from arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.c for the twl regulator so the
> voltage processor hardware can handle them directly. Or add a
> separate regulator driver operating the voltages like Nishanth
> posted patches for earlier.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
