lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: power_allocator: respect upper and lower bounds for cooling device
From
Date


On 10/14/20 1:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/10/2020 14:22, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> The thermal cooling device specified in DT might be instantiated for
>> a thermal zone trip point with a limited set of OPPs to operate on. This
>> configuration should be supported by Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA),
>> since it is a standard for other governors. Change the code and allow IPA
>> to get power value of lower and upper bound set for a given cooling
>> device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> index dd59085f38f5..f9ee7787b325 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ static u32 estimate_sustainable_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
>> if (instance->trip != params->trip_max_desired_temperature)
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (power_actor_get_min_power(cdev, tz, &min_power))
>> + if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->upper,
>> + &min_power))
>
> if (cdev->ops->state2power && cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz,
> instance->upper,
> &min_power))
>
> ?


Yes, worth to check. I had this in [1] and missed it here while playing
with re-base of these patch series and other test branches.

I will send v2 with the needed cdev_is_power_actor() check.

>
>> continue;
>>
>> sustainable_power += min_power;
>> @@ -404,7 +405,8 @@ static int allocate_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>
>> weighted_req_power[i] = frac_to_int(weight * req_power[i]);
>>
>> - if (power_actor_get_max_power(cdev, tz, &max_power[i]))
>> + if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->lower,
>> + &max_power[i]))
>> continue;
>
> Same here ?

Inside that loop we check (just a few lines above):

if (!cdev_is_power_actor(cdev))
continue;

then we call this:

if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->lower,
&max_power[i]))

So it should be safe.

>
>> total_req_power += req_power[i];
>>
>
>

Thank you Daniel for reviewing this.

Regards,
Lukasz

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20201008170426.465-3-lukasz.luba@arm.com/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-14 18:06    [W:0.057 / U:3.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site