linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: setup gpu thermal with higher temperatures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7fef1b3a-6b63-47fd-a3a8-346bded682c3@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:07:54 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, Konrad Dybcio
 <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: setup gpu thermal with
 higher temperatures

On 3.02.2025 9:23 AM, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
> On 01/02/2025 16:37, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 29.01.2025 3:41 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2025 10:43, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> On the SM8650, the dynamic clock and voltage scaling (DCVS) for the GPU
>>>> is done from the HLOS, but the GPU can achieve a much higher temperature
>>>> before failing according the the reference downstream implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Set higher temperatures in the GPU trip points corresponding to
>>>> the temperatures provided by Qualcomm in the dowstream source, much
>>>> closer to the junction temperature and with a higher critical
>>>> temperature trip in the case the HLOS DCVS cannot handle the
>>>> temperature surge.
>>>
>>> Since the tsens MAX_THRESHOLD which leads to a system
>>> monitor thermal shutdown is set at 120C, I need to lower
>>> the critical and hot trip point, so please ignore this patchset.
>>
>> Should we make the "critical" trip point something like 110 or so? If
>> LMH triggers a hard shutdown at 120, the OS will not have any time to
>> take action. And 120 sounds like we're pushing it quite hard anyway.
> 
> 
> My plan is to harmonize and use 110 for hot and 115 for critical, and
> if available any passive cooling devices is available at 95C

sounds good!

Konrad