Hi Bjorn,

On 23/08/2021 17:05, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

On Sat 21 Aug 02:41 PDT 2021, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

Hi Thara,

On 09/08/2021 21:16, Thara Gopinath wrote:

quoted

Driver enabling various pieces of Limits Management Hardware(LMh) for cpu
cluster0 and cpu cluster1 namely kick starting monitoring of temperature,
current, battery current violations, enabling reliability algorithm and
setting up various temperature limits.

The following has been explained in the cover letter. I am including this
here so that this remains in the commit message as well.

LMh is a hardware infrastructure on some Qualcomm SoCs that can enforce
temperature and current limits as programmed by software for certain IPs
like CPU. On many newer LMh is configured by firmware/TZ and no programming
is needed from the kernel side. But on certain SoCs like sdm845 the
firmware does not do a complete programming of the h/w. On such soc's
kernel software has to explicitly set up the temperature limits and turn on
various monitoring and enforcing algorithms on the hardware.

Tested-by: Steev Klimaszewski <redacted> # Lenovo Yoga C630
Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <redacted>

Is it possible to have an option to disable/enable the LMh driver at
runtime, for instance with a module parameter ?

Are you referring to being able to disable the hardware throttling, or
the driver's changes to thermal pressure?

The former.

I'm not aware of any way to disable the hardware. I do remember that
there was some experiments done (with a hacked up boot chain) early on
and iirc it was concluded that it's not a good idea.

My objective was to test the board with the thermal framework handling
the mitigation instead of the hardware.

I guess I can set the hardware temperature higher than the thermal zone
temperature.

On which sensor the lmh does refer to ? The cluster one ?

(by the way the thermal zone temperatures per core are lower by 5°C than
the hardware mitigation ? is it done on purpose ?)

Either way, if there is a way and there is a use for it, we can always
add such parameter incrementally. So I suggest that we merge this as is.

Yes, that was for my information. It is already merged.

Thanks

  -- Daniel

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog