Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: enable built-in thermal monitoring on RK3588

[Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:14 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-01 06:20, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 1:11 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
> >> Please see also some nitpicks below, which I forgot to mention in
> >> my earlier response.  I'm sorry for that.
> >>
> >> On 2024-02-29 20:26, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> >> > Include thermal zones information in device tree for RK3588 variants.
> >> >
> >> > This also enables the TSADC controller unconditionally on all boards
> >> > to ensure that thermal protections are in place via throttling and
> >> > emergency reset, once OPPs are added to enable CPU DVFS.
> >> >
> >> > The default settings (using CRU as the emergency reset mechanism)
> >> > should work on all boards regardless of their wiring, as CRU resets
> >> > do not depend on any external components. Boards that have the TSHUT
> >> > signal wired to the reset line of the PMIC may opt to switch to GPIO
> >> > tshut mode instead (rockchip,hw-tshut-mode = <1>;)
> >> >
> >> > It seems though that downstream kernels don't use that, even for
> >> > those boards where the wiring allows for GPIO based tshut, such as
> >> > Radxa Rock 5B [1], [2], [3]
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> > https://github.com/radxa/kernel/blob/stable-5.10-rock5/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts#L540
> >> > [2]
> >> > https://github.com/radxa/kernel/blob/stable-5.10-rock5/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi#L5433
> >> > [3] https://dl.radxa.com/rock5/5b/docs/hw/radxa_rock_5b_v1423_sch.pdf
> >> > page 11 (TSADC_SHUT_H)
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi | 176
> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> >  1 file changed, 175 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
> >> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
> >> > index 36b1b7acfe6a..9bf197358642 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
> >> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >> >  #include <dt-bindings/reset/rockchip,rk3588-cru.h>
> >> >  #include <dt-bindings/phy/phy.h>
> >> >  #include <dt-bindings/ata/ahci.h>
> >> > +#include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> >> >
> >> >  / {
> >> >       compatible = "rockchip,rk3588";
> >> > @@ -2225,7 +2226,180 @@ tsadc: tsadc@fec00000 {
> >> >               pinctrl-1 = <&tsadc_shut>;
> >> >               pinctrl-names = "gpio", "otpout";
> >> >               #thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
> >> > -             status = "disabled";
> >> > +             status = "okay";
> >> > +     };
> >> > +
> >> > +     thermal_zones: thermal-zones {
> >> > +             /* sensor near the center of the SoC */
> >> > +             package_thermal: package-thermal {
> >> > +                     polling-delay-passive = <0>;
> >> > +                     polling-delay = <0>;
> >> > +                     thermal-sensors = <&tsadc 0>;
> >> > +
> >> > +                     trips {
> >> > +                             package_crit: package-crit {
> >> > +                                     temperature = <115000>;
> >> > +                                     hysteresis = <0>;
> >> > +                                     type = "critical";
> >> > +                             };
> >> > +                     };
> >> > +             };
> >> > +
> >> > +             /* sensor between A76 cores 0 and 1 */
> >> > +             bigcore0_thermal: bigcore0-thermal {
> >> > +                     polling-delay-passive = <100>;
> >> > +                     polling-delay = <0>;
> >> > +                     thermal-sensors = <&tsadc 1>;
> >> > +
> >> > +                     trips {
> >> > +                             /* threshold to start collecting temperature
> >> > +                              * statistics e.g. with the IPA governor
> >> > +                              */
> >>
> >> See, I'm not a native English speaker, but I've spent a lot of time
> >> and effort improving my English skills.  Thus, perhaps these comments
> >> may or may not seem like unnecessary nitpicking, depending on how much
> >> someone pays attention to writing style in general, but I'll risk to
> >> be annoying and state these comments anyway. :)
> >>
> >> The comment above could be written in a much more condensed form like
> >> this, which would also be a bit more accurate:
> >>
> >>
> >>                                 /* IPA threshold, when IPA governor is
> >> used */
> >>
> >> IOW, we're writing all this for someone to read later, but we should
> >> (and can) perfectly reasonably expect some already existing background
> >> knowledge from the readers.  In other words, we should be as concise
> >> as possible.
> >
> > In fact, the power allocation governor code itself doesn't call those
> > trips threshold or target as your suggested wording would imply.
> > Instead, it calls them "switch on temperature" and "maximum desired
> > temperature" [1]. Maybe we can call them that in the comments (and
> > also avoid calling the governor IPA, because upstream code only calls
> > it a "power allocator").
>
> Hmm, but "IPA" is still mentioned in exactly three places in the files
> under drivers/thermal.  I think that warrants the use of "IPA", which
> is also widely used pretty much everywhere.
>
> Perhaps a win-win would be to have only the very first of the comments
> like this, to introduce "IPA" as an acronym:
>
>                                    /* Power allocator (IPA) thermal
> governor       */
>                                    /* switch-on point, when IPA governor
> is used   */

Yes, good point, thanks!

> Next, "the target temperature" is mentioned more than a few times in
> drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c, which I believe makes the use
> of "IPA target" perfectly valid.  Actually, let's use "IPA target
> temperature", if you agree, to make it self descriptive.

Or perhaps simply "target temperature"? Stepwise governor will also
use this trip as its target, so it's not IPA specific, unlike the
switch-on point.

> Finally, the threshold...  Based on
> drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c,
> I think "IPA switch-on point" would be a good choice, which I already
> used above in the proposed opening comment.

Agreed, that sounds good to me, will reflect in the next iteration.
Thanks for bringing it up!

Best,
Alexey

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip