From: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add thermal zone
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:10:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aff517d2-df92-da86-fc1e-5f8f8c42f736@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=XbnuNg_B_Uoj8j9hz0t7=ORdcVB16oDmVk1q2iZYGs9A@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Doug,
On 07/11/2018 03:43 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:36 PM, David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> On 06/29/2018 04:54 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:55PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> The PMIC TEMP_ALARM hardware peripheral will perform an automatic partial
>>>>>> PMIC shutdown upon hitting over-temperature stage 2 (125 C). This turns
>>>>>> off peripherals within the PMIC that are expected to draw significant
>>>>>> current. The set of peripherals included varies between PMICs. This
>>>>>> partial shutdown will occur simultaneously with the triggering of an
>>>>>> interrupt to the APPS processor that informs the qcom-spmi-temp-alarm
>>>>>> driver that an over-temperature threshold has been crossed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The TEMP_ALARM peripheral will perform an automatic full PMIC shutdown
>>>>>> upon hitting over-temperature stage 3 (145 C). Software won't receive an
>>>>>> interrupt in this case because all power is cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> This information is very useful, thanks David!
>>>>>
>>>>> The (partial) hardware shutdown seems like a good measure of last
>>>>> resort, however I suppose we prefer Linux to initiate a shutdown
>>>>> before losing part of the peripherals (drivers might not be happy
>>>>> about this and probably not revover even when the temperature goes
>>>>> down again) or reach a full PMIC shutdown.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if there are reasons to prefer to go the hardware
>>>>> limits, it's also an option for device makers to overwrite these
>>>>> settings if they want different behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Disabling stage 3 automatic full PMIC shutdown at 145 C is definitely a
>>>> bad idea. This exists as a last resort in order to save the hardware and
>>>> ensure end user safety in case of excessive temperature even if software
>>>> is locked up.
>>>>
>>>> Disabling stage 2 automatic partial PMIC shutdown at 125 C is not
>>>> recommended as the PMIC is already outside of reasonable operating
>>>> conditions and needs to take corrective action quickly. However, doing so
>>>> may be acceptable if software is taking action to shut down the system
>>>> immediately upon receiving the stage 2 over-temperature interrupt.
>>>> Just to confirm: is it expected that at stage 2 the CPU's on the SoC
>>> should continue running even with partial PMIC shutdown enabled?
>>
>> This is not guaranteed.
>>
>>
>>> It sounded to me like partial PMIC shutdown was supposed to shut down
>>> high-power rails that were not essential to the task of performing an
>>> orderly shutdown.
>>
>> Shutting down high-power peripherals is accurate; however, special care is
>> not taken to ensure that an orderly shutdown is possible. At the very
>> least, the HW and SW state will be out of sync for the peripherals that
>> are shut down.
>
> OK, I guess I'm confused now. Why does partial PMIC shutdown even
> exist then? What is the point of leaving some rails alive if software
> could stop running? It seems like it would be better to just shut
> everything down.
>
> Said another way: can you describe what benefit you see for only
> partially shutting down the PMIC at stage 2 compared to just fully
> shutting it down at stage 2?
Stage 2 partial shutdown is present on PM8998 for legacy reasons. It is
being phased out on future PMICs. My understanding is that it was
originally intended to be a less aggressive mitigation option than a full
shutdown and that it allows for more post-mitigation analysis (e.g.
preserved RAM contents).
The set of peripherals which are disabled during stage 2 partial shutdown
is not well defined which leads to the kind of uncertainty and ill-defined
behavior being discussed in this thread.
>> Disabling stage 2 partial shutdown and then using software to
>> perform a controlled shutdown at 125 C is probably the best option for you
>> at this point.
>
> This seems OK to me given that I don't understand the original purpose
> of the partial PMIC shutdown. Would you expect that all upstream PMIC
> users would want stage 2 partial shutdown disabled, so we should just
> do this for all users of the PMIC?
I'd think that we only want to override stage 2 partial shutdown if
thermal nodes are defined which cause a graceful software controlled
shutdown in place of the PMIC partial shutdown. Therefore, management of
the feature should probably be tied to a boolean DT property.
Take care,
David
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-12 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-28 21:09 [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add thermal-zones node Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-28 21:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add spmi-temp-alarm node Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-28 21:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add thermal zone Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-28 22:58 ` Doug Anderson
2018-06-29 18:51 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-29 21:29 ` David Collins
2018-06-29 23:54 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-07-10 17:45 ` David Collins
2018-07-11 21:56 ` Doug Anderson
2018-07-11 22:36 ` David Collins
2018-07-11 22:43 ` Doug Anderson
2018-07-11 22:53 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-07-12 0:10 ` David Collins [this message]
2018-07-13 16:49 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-28 22:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add thermal-zones node Doug Anderson
2018-06-29 18:30 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aff517d2-df92-da86-fc1e-5f8f8c42f736@codeaurora.org \
--to=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=andy.gross@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david.brown@linaro.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).