Hi Steev,
thanks for taking the time to test the series.
<snip>Makes sense, I just wasn't entirely sure if it was on purpose or not.
Yes, the module is designed to be loaded only. I did not wanted to add
more complexity in the driver as unloading it is not the priority ATM.
We need this to be a module in order to load it after the other devices.
I noticed this as well, and was going to ask if it shouldn't be named qcom_dtpm, but I don't think it matters since it would be in /lib/modules/$kver/kernel/drivers/soc/qcom ?[ ... ]+ depends on DTPM
+ help
+ Describe the hierarchy for the Dynamic Thermal Power
+ Management tree on this platform. That will create all the
+ power capping capable devices.
+
endmenu
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile b/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
index 70d5de69fd7b..cf38496c3f61 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile
@@ -28,3 +28,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_LLCC) += llcc-qcom.o
obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_RPMHPD) += rpmhpd.o
obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_RPMPD) += rpmpd.o
obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_KRYO_L2_ACCESSORS) += kryo-l2-accessors.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_DTPM) += dtpm.o
So, I'm definitely not the greatest of kernel hackers, just enough knowledge to be dangerous and I know how to apply patches properly.... I'm not able to actually get this working. I've tried adding it with a few different numbers, and any time i try to add the d-p-c, I getYes, the energy model is missing for the GPU, very likely the+static struct of_device_id __initdata sdm845_dtpm_match_table[] = {It does seem to work aside from not being able to modprobe -r the
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845", .data = sdm845_hierarchy },
+ {},
+};
+
+static int __init sdm845_dtpm_init(void)
+{
+ return dtpm_create_hierarchy(sdm845_dtpm_match_table);
+}
+late_initcall(sdm845_dtpm_init);
+
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Qualcomm DTPM driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_ALIAS("platform:dtpm");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx");
+
module. Although I do see
[ 35.849622] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'sdm845' / 0-0 uW,
[ 35.849652] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'package' / 0-0 uW,
[ 35.849676] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'cpu0-cpufreq' / 40000-436000 uW,
[ 35.849702] dtpm: Registered dtpm node 'cpu4-cpufreq' /
520000-5828000 uW,
[ 35.849734] dtpm_devfreq: No energy model available for '5000000.gpu'
[ 35.849738] dtpm: Failed to setup '/soc@0/gpu@5000000': -22
If the devfreq issue with the gpu isn't expected, are we missing
something for the c630?
'dynamic-power-coefficient' property is missing in the gpu section.
A quick test could be to add a value like 800. The resulting power
numbers will be wrong but it should be possible to act on the
performance by using these wrong power numbers.
-- Daniel