linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ARM: dts: omap36xx: Enable thermal throttling

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:54:18 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
        Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        André Roth <neolynx@...il.com>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Adam Ford <adam.ford@...icpd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM: dts: omap36xx: Enable thermal throttling

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@...aro.org> 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 :)

-- 
viresh