[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XqoRajjNcW8RyJfrcXQVDihfjAnAsN+O9g+6qDrLHfJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:25 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8998: Add thermal zone
Hi David,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Hello Matthias,
>
> 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? 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.
I think Matthias was seeing that when he reached stage 2 and partial
PMIC shutdown happened that the system was just falling on the floor.
...maybe we just have things configured incorrectly?
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists