[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f73d847fbe9d7f6dd05802eb7e47d49@manjaro.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 19:38:14 +0100
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Chen-Yu
Tsai <wens@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: enable built-in thermal
monitoring on RK3588
Hello Heiko,
On 2024-03-02 12:25, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. Februar 2024, 20:26:32 CET schrieb Alexey Charkov:
>> 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@...il.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@...00000 {
>> pinctrl-1 = <&tsadc_shut>;
>> pinctrl-names = "gpio", "otpout";
>> #thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
>> - status = "disabled";
>> + status = "okay";
>> + };
>
> so I've skimmed over the general discussion, though don't have a hard
> opinion in either direction yet. Still there are some low-hanging
> fruit:
>
> - having the thermal-zones addition in a separate patch would allow to
> merge the obvious stuff, while this discussion is still ongoing
Very good suggestion.
> - status=okay in a soc dtsi is wrong, because okay is the default
> status
> so if anything the status property should be removed
>
> In general I'm not that much of a fan of things just working
> implicitly.
> So somehow, when someone submits a board devicetree, I expect them to
> having ensured stuff is enabled somewhat ok. So even seeing a simple
>
> &tsadc {
> status = "okay"
> };
>
> suggests that they have at least noticed the existence of thermal
> stuff.
I agree that having such additional "signed-off markers", so to speak,
in
a board dts is quite assuring. I mean, someone implementing a new dts
file
for a new board should simply know what needs to be done there, and
there
should be no excuses for not checking the thermal throttling stuff.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists