| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:14:03 +0800
From: Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>
To: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"swarren@...dotorg.org" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"ian.campbell@...rix.com" <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"rui.zhang@...el.com" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"durgadoss.r@...el.com" <durgadoss.r@...el.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/14] drivers: thermal: introduce device tree parser
On 08/30/2013 07:19 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> * PGP Signed: 08/29/2013 at 04:19:46 PM
>
> Mark, Pawel and Stephen,
>
>
> On 27-08-2013 14:17, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> On 27-08-2013 12:23, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:44:40PM +0100, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>> Hello Mark,
>
> <cut>
>
> I believe now we need to align on thermal bindings, before I propose
> next version of this series. So, following the discussions on this
> thread, I believe a typical CPU thermal zone would look like the following:
> + #include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> +
> + cpu_thermal: cpu_thermal {
> + passive-delay = <250>; /* milliseconds */
> + polling-delay = <1000>; /* milliseconds */
> + /*
> + * sensor ID
> + */
> + sensors = <&bandgap0 0>;
> + /*
> + * cooling
> + * device Usage Trip lower
> bound upper bound
> + */
> + cooling-devices = <&cpu0 100 &cpu-alert
> THERMAL_NO_LIMITS THERMAL_NO_LIMITS>;
> + trips {
> + cpu-alert: cpu-alert {
> + temperature = <100000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + };
> + cpu-crit: cpu-crit {
> + temperature = <125000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_CRITICAL>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
>
> *Note: THERMAL_NO_LIMIT means, it will be using the cooling device
> minimum and maximum limits.
>
> Couple of comments.
> 1. I am keeping the pooling intervals. A possible alternative way to
> describe that would be specifying the maximum dT/dt. Essentially because
> I am still convinced that this is part of hw specs.
>
> 2. The above follows your suggestion to use consumer pointing to
> producers. Although, I still need to figure out how this could be
> implemented for Linux. But I think that is another story, at least for
> now. We need to first align on the DT binding itself.
>
> 3. The link from cooling device specification to trip points, from my
> perspective, should be enough, and thus we shall not need the thermal
> cells and size for trip points, as you proposed. Let me know what you think.
>
> Below is another example, on a more complex scenario, board specific
> case (hypothetical, just for exemplification):
>
> + #include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> +
> + board_thermal: board_thermal {
> + passive-delay = <1000>; /* milliseconds */
> + polling-delay = <2500>; /* milliseconds */
> + /*
> + * sensor ID
> + */
> + sensors = <&adc-dummy 0>,
> + <&adc-dummy 1>,
> + <&adc-dymmy 2>;
> + /*
> + * cooling
> + * device Usage Trip lower upper
> + */
> + cooling-devices = <&cpu0 75 &cpu-trip 0 2>,
> + <&gpu0 40 &gpu-trip 0 2>;
> + <&lcd0 25 &lcd-trip 5 10>;
> + trips {
> + cpu-trip: cpu-trip {
> + temperature = <60000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + };
> + gpu-trip: gpu-trip {
> + temperature = <55000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + }
> + lcd-trip: lcp-trip {
> + temperature = <53000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + };
> + crit-trip: crit-trip {
> + temperature = <68000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_CRITICAL>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
>
> Now writing the above example, one might want to have a way to say the
> sensor correlation equation.
>
> Another example:
> + #include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> +
> + dsp_thermal: dsp_thermal {
> + passive-delay = <250>; /* milliseconds */
> + polling-delay = <1000>; /* milliseconds */
> + /*
> + * sensor ID
> + */
> + sensors = <&bandgap0 1>;
> + /*
> + * cooling
> + * device Usage Trip lower
> bound upper bound
> + */
> + cooling-devices = <&dsp0 100 &dsp-alert
> THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + trips {
> + dsp-alert: dsp-alert {
> + temperature = <100000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + };
> + dsp-crit: cdsp-crit {
> + temperature = <125000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_CRITICAL>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> + gpu_thermal: gpu_thermal {
> + passive-delay = <500>; /* milliseconds */
> + polling-delay = <1000>; /* milliseconds */
> + /*
> + * sensor ID
> + */
> + sensors = <&bandgap0 2>;
> + /*
> + * cooling
> + * device Usage Trip lower
> bound upper bound
> + */
> + cooling-devices = <&gpu0 100 &gpu-alert
> THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> + trips {
> + gpu-alert: gpu-alert {
> + temperature = <100000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE>;
> + };
> + gpu-crit: gpu-crit {
> + temperature = <125000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + hysteresis = <2000>; /* milliCelsius */
> + type = <THERMAL_TRIP_CRITICAL>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
>
>
> Wei, I think the above would cover for the IPs with multiple internal
> sensors cases you were looking for, right?
Yes, I think so, and this series is what I'm looking for, thanks again.
>
> Durga, please also check if I am missing something to cover for your
> plans to, in case you will be using DT to describe your HW.
>
> Anyways, Mark and Pawel, let me know if I missed something from our
> discussion. I believe the above bindings would look more like regular
> standard DT bindings. And also they should be now slim enough, without
> Linux implementation details and also without policies.
>
>>
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists