| Message ID | 20231109183322.28039-2-sumitg@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for _TFP and change throttle pctg | expand |
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> > > Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling. > As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both > are present in a Thermal zone. > > [1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling > Period)" > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> > Co-developed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 12 +++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive { > struct acpi_thermal_trip trip; > unsigned long tc1; > unsigned long tc2; > - unsigned long tsp; > + unsigned long delay; > }; > > struct acpi_thermal_active { > @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz) > > tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp; > > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp); > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { > + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp; > + return true; > + } > + > status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp); > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > return false; > > - tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp; > + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100; > > return true; > } > @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device) > > acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip; > if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) { > - passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100; > + passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay; > > trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE; > trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk); > -- So does the second patch in the series really depend on this one? If not, I can apply it I think.
On 22/11/23 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> >> >> Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling. >> As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both >> are present in a Thermal zone. >> >> [1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling >> Period)" >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> >> Co-developed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 12 +++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c >> index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c >> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive { >> struct acpi_thermal_trip trip; >> unsigned long tc1; >> unsigned long tc2; >> - unsigned long tsp; >> + unsigned long delay; >> }; >> >> struct acpi_thermal_active { >> @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz) >> >> tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp; >> >> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp); >> + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { >> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp; >> + return true; >> + } >> + >> status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp); >> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) >> return false; >> >> - tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp; >> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100; >> >> return true; >> } >> @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device) >> >> acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip; >> if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) { >> - passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100; >> + passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay; >> >> trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE; >> trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk); >> -- > > So does the second patch in the series really depend on this one? > > If not, I can apply it I think. Yes, this patch can be applied independently. Thank you! Best Regards, Sumit Gupta
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:55 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > On 22/11/23 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> > >> From: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> > >> > >> Add support of "Thermal fast Sampling Period (_TFP)" for Passive cooling. > >> As per [1], _TFP overrides the "Thermal Sampling Period (_TSP)" if both > >> are present in a Thermal zone. > >> > >> [1] ACPI Specification 6.4 - section 11.4.17. _TFP (Thermal fast Sampling > >> Period)" > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Brasen <jbrasen@nvidia.com> > >> Co-developed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 12 +++++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > >> index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > >> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive { > >> struct acpi_thermal_trip trip; > >> unsigned long tc1; > >> unsigned long tc2; > >> - unsigned long tsp; > >> + unsigned long delay; > >> }; > >> > >> struct acpi_thermal_active { > >> @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz) > >> > >> tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp; > >> > >> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp); > >> + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { > >> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp; > >> + return true; > >> + } > >> + > >> status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp); > >> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > >> return false; > >> > >> - tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp; > >> + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100; > >> > >> return true; > >> } > >> @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device) > >> > >> acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip; > >> if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) { > >> - passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100; > >> + passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay; > >> > >> trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE; > >> trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk); > >> -- > > > > So does the second patch in the series really depend on this one? > > > > If not, I can apply it I think. > > Yes, this patch can be applied independently. Thank you! OK, applied as 6.8 material (with some changelog edits), thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c index f74d81abdbfc..3b75eb2260d7 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct acpi_thermal_passive { struct acpi_thermal_trip trip; unsigned long tc1; unsigned long tc2; - unsigned long tsp; + unsigned long delay; }; struct acpi_thermal_active { @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ static bool passive_trip_params_init(struct acpi_thermal *tz) tz->trips.passive.tc2 = tmp; + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TFP", NULL, &tmp); + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp; + return true; + } + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(tz->device->handle, "_TSP", NULL, &tmp); if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) return false; - tz->trips.passive.tsp = tmp; + tz->trips.passive.delay = tmp * 100; return true; } @@ -904,7 +910,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device) acpi_trip = &tz->trips.passive.trip; if (acpi_thermal_trip_valid(acpi_trip)) { - passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.tsp * 100; + passive_delay = tz->trips.passive.delay; trip->type = THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE; trip->temperature = acpi_thermal_temp(tz, acpi_trip->temp_dk);