Re: [RFC v2 1/2] ARM: dts: omap3: Add cpu trips and cooling map for omap3 family

[Adam Ford]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 9:38 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Am 14.09.2019 um 15:42 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 4:20 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 13.09.2019 um 17:37 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>
> >>> The OMAP3530, AM3517 and DM3730 all show thresholds of 90C and 105C
> >>> depending on commercial or industrial temperature ratings.  This
> >>> patch expands the thermal information to the limits of 90 and 105
> >>> for alert and critical.
> >>>
> >>> For boards who never use industrial temperatures, these can be
> >>> changed on their respective device trees with something like:
> >>>
> >>> &cpu_alert0 {
> >>>      temperature = <85000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> &cpu_crit {
> >>>      temperature = <90000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> V2:  Change the CPU reference to &cpu instead of &cpu0
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>> index 235ecfd61e2d..dfbd0cb0b00b 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-cpu-thermal.dtsi
> >>> @@ -17,4 +17,25 @@ cpu_thermal: cpu_thermal {
> >>>
> >>>                      /* sensor       ID */
> >>>      thermal-sensors = <&bandgap     0>;
> >>> +
> >>> +     cpu_trips: trips {
> >>> +             cpu_alert0: cpu_alert {
> >>> +                     temperature = <90000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> +                     hysteresis = <2000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> +                     type = "passive";
> >>> +             };
> >>> +             cpu_crit: cpu_crit {
> >>> +                     temperature = <105000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> +                     hysteresis = <2000>; /* millicelsius */
> >>> +                     type = "critical";
> >>> +             };
> >>> +     };
> >>> +
> >>> +     cpu_cooling_maps: cooling-maps {
> >>> +             map0 {
> >>> +                     trip = <&cpu_alert0>;
> >>> +                     cooling-device =
> >>> +                             <&cpu THERMAL_NO_LIMIT THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;
> >>> +             };
> >>> +     };
> >>> };
> >>> --
> >>> 2.17.1
> >>>
> >>
> >> Here is my test log (GTA04A5 with DM3730CBP100).
> >> "high-load" script is driving the NEON to full power
> >> and would report calculation errors.
> >>
> >> There is no noise visible in the bandgap sensor data
> >> induced by power supply fluctuations (log shows system
> >> voltage while charging).
> >>
> >
> > Great data!
> >
> >> root@letux:~# ./high-load -n2
> >> 100% load stress test for 1 cores running ./neon_loop2
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:50 UTC 2019 65Â 4111mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:50 UTC 2019 67Â 4005mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:52 UTC 2019 68Â 4000mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:53 UTC 2019 68Â 4000mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:55 UTC 2019 72Â 3976mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:56 UTC 2019 72Â 4023mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:57 UTC 2019 72Â 3900mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:05:59 UTC 2019 73Â 4029mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:00 UTC 2019 73Â 3988mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:01 UTC 2019 73Â 4005mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:03 UTC 2019 73Â 4011mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:04 UTC 2019 73Â 4117mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:06 UTC 2019 73Â 4005mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:07 UTC 2019 75Â 3994mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:08 UTC 2019 75Â 3970mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:09 UTC 2019 75Â 4046mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:11 UTC 2019 75Â 4005mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:12 UTC 2019 75Â 4023mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:14 UTC 2019 75Â 3970mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:15 UTC 2019 75Â 4011mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:16 UTC 2019 77Â 4017mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:18 UTC 2019 77Â 3994mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:19 UTC 2019 77Â 3994mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:20 UTC 2019 77Â 3988mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:22 UTC 2019 77Â 4023mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:23 UTC 2019 77Â 4023mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:24 UTC 2019 78Â 4005mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:26 UTC 2019 78Â 4105mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:27 UTC 2019 78Â 4011mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:28 UTC 2019 78Â 3994mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:06:30 UTC 2019 78Â 4123mV 1000MHz
> >> ...
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:09:57 UTC 2019 88Â 4082mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:09:59 UTC 2019 88Â 4164mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:00 UTC 2019 88Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:01 UTC 2019 88Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:03 UTC 2019 88Â 4082mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:04 UTC 2019 88Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:06 UTC 2019 88Â 4146mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:07 UTC 2019 88Â 4041mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:08 UTC 2019 88Â 4035mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:10 UTC 2019 88Â 4052mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:11 UTC 2019 88Â 4087mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:12 UTC 2019 88Â 4152mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:14 UTC 2019 88Â 4070mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:15 UTC 2019 88Â 4064mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:17 UTC 2019 88Â 4170mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:18 UTC 2019 88Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:19 UTC 2019 88Â 4187mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:21 UTC 2019 88Â 4093mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:22 UTC 2019 88Â 4087mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:23 UTC 2019 90Â 4070mV 1000MHz
> >
> > Should we be a little more conservative?  Without knowing the
> > accuracy, i believe we do not want to run at 800 or 1GHz at 90C, so if
> > we made this value 89 instead of 90, we would throttle a little more
> > conservatively.
>
> Well, the OMAP5 also defines exactly 100ÂC in the device tree.
>
> I would assume that the badgap sensor accuracy is so that it
> never reports less than the real temperature. So if we
> throttle at reported 90Â TJ is likely lower.
>
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:25 UTC 2019 88Â 4123mV 800MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:26 UTC 2019 88Â 4064mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:28 UTC 2019 90Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >
> > Again here, I interpret the data sheet correctly, we're technically out of spec
>
> I read the data sheet as if 90ÂC at OPP1G is still within spec.
> 91 would be obviously outside (if bandgap sensor is precise).
>
> >
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:29 UTC 2019 88Â 4076mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:30 UTC 2019 88Â 4064mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:32 UTC 2019 88Â 4117mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:33 UTC 2019 88Â 4105mV 800MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:34 UTC 2019 88Â 4070mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:36 UTC 2019 88Â 4076mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:37 UTC 2019 88Â 4087mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:39 UTC 2019 88Â 4017mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:40 UTC 2019 88Â 4093mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:41 UTC 2019 88Â 4058mV 800MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:42 UTC 2019 88Â 4035mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:44 UTC 2019 90Â 4058mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:45 UTC 2019 88Â 4064mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:47 UTC 2019 88Â 4064mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:48 UTC 2019 88Â 4029mV 1000MHz
> >> Sat Sep 14 09:10:50 UTC 2019 90Â 4046mV 1000MHz
> >> ^Ckill 4680
> >> root@letux:~# cpufreq-info
> >> cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
> >> Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, please.
> >> analyzing CPU 0:
> >>  driver: cpufreq-dt
> >>  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
> >>  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
> >>  maximum transition latency: 300 us.
> >>  hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz
> >>  available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz
> >>  available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance
> >>  current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz.
> >>                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
> >>                  within this range.
> >>  current CPU frequency is 600 MHz (asserted by call to hardware).
> >>  cpufreq stats: 300 MHz:22.81%, 600 MHz:2.50%, 800 MHz:2.10%, 1000 MHz:72.59%  (1563)
> >> root@letux:~#
> >>
> >> So OPP is reduced if bandgap sensor reports >= 90ÂC
> >> which almost immediately makes the temperature
> >> go down.
> >>
> >> No operational hickups were observed.
> >>
> >> Surface temperature of the PoP chip did rise to
> >> approx. 53ÂC during this test.
> >>
> >> Tested-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # on GTA04A5 with dm3730cbp100
> >>
>
> BTW: this patch (set) is even independent of my 1GHz OPP patches.
> Should also work with OPP-v1 definitions so that maintainers can
> decide which one to apply first.

If I am going integrate the cooling references into &cpu node, I'll
probably base it on your work since the cooling isn't really that
important until we exceed 800MHz.  If I do it on the current linux
master or omap for-next branch, it may not apply cleanly.

>
> It is just more difficult to reach TJ of 90ÂC without 1GHz.

If it even does at all without external influences.

adam
>
> BR,
> Nikolaus
>