On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:

Hi

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:36 PM, David Collins [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello Doug,

quoted

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, David Collins [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 06/29/2018 04:54 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:55PM -0700, David Collins wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

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?

This is not guaranteed.

quoted

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.

Shutting down high-power peripherals is accurate; however, special care is
not taken to ensure that an orderly shutdown is possible.  At the very
least, the HW and SW state will be out of sync for the peripherals that
are shut down.

OK, I guess I'm confused now.  Why does partial PMIC shutdown even
exist then?  What is the point of leaving some rails alive if software
could stop running?  It seems like it would be better to just shut
everything down.

Said another way: can you describe what benefit you see for only
partially shutting down the PMIC at stage 2 compared to just fully
shutting it down at stage 2?

quoted

quoted

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?

More information about the exact crash steps would be helpful to
investigate this further.  I'm not sure how much time you want to put into
it though.

Matthias can add more, but basically he heated the system up and when
it reached the stage 2 shutdown it was no longer responsive.

The system behaved as on a warm reset when reaching stage 2
temperature, no kernel crash, but messages in /dev/pstore were
preserved.