On 18/09/2019 11:24, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-09-19, 00:33, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> On 12/09/2019 23:19, Adam Ford wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:12 PM Daniel Lezcano >>> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12/09/2019 20:30, Adam Ford wrote: >>>>> The thermal sensor in the omap3 family isn't accurate, but it's >>>>> better than nothing. The various OPP's enabled for the omap3630 >>>>> support up to OPP1G, however the datasheet for the DM3730 states >>>>> that OPP130 and OPP1G are not available above TJ of 90C. >>>>> >>>>> This patch configures the thermal throttling to limit the >>>>> operating points of the omap3630 to Only OPP50 and OPP100 if >>>>> the thermal sensor reads a value above 90C. >> >> Oh, that's a very interesting use case. >> >> AFAICT the thermal framework is not designed to deal with this >> situation. I agree this setup may work (even if I'm not convinced about >> the stability of the whole). >> >> May be Viresh can help for the cpufreq side? > > Sorry but I am not able to understand what's not supported by thermal framework > here and what can I do to help :) The solution of preventing running above the 90°C by changing the OPPs is fine and works. It is a way of workaround the spec. But AFAIU, the specs of the board say the OPPs 800MHz and 1GHz are only permitted during an amount of time above 90°C which makes the constraint inverted and recall somehow the 'turbo-mode' description: " - turbo-mode: Marks the OPP to be used only for turbo modes. Turbo mode is available on some platforms, where the device can run over its operating frequency for a short duration of time limited by the device's power, current and thermal limits. " This is where I thought you can give an input. -- <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
