| Message ID | 20230713154743.611870-1-nfraprado@collabora.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Daniel Lezcano |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] thermal/drivers/mediatek/lvts_thermal: Make readings valid in filtered mode | expand |
Il 13/07/23 17:42, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado ha scritto: > Currently, when a controller is configured to use filtered mode, thermal > readings are valid only about 30% of the time. > > Upon testing, it was noticed that lowering any of the interval settings > resulted in an improved rate of valid data. The same was observed when > decreasing the number of samples for each sensor (which also results in > quicker measurements). > > Retrying the read with a timeout longer than the time it takes to > resample (about 344us with these settings and 4 sensors) also improves > the rate. > > Lower all timing settings to the minimum, configure the filtering to > single sample, and poll the measurement register for at least one period > to improve the data validity on filtered mode. With these changes in > place, out of 100000 reads, a single one failed, ie 99.999% of the data > was valid. > > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Tested-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com> > Good to go! Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:42:37AM -0400, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > Currently, when a controller is configured to use filtered mode, thermal > readings are valid only about 30% of the time. > > Upon testing, it was noticed that lowering any of the interval settings > resulted in an improved rate of valid data. The same was observed when > decreasing the number of samples for each sensor (which also results in > quicker measurements). > > Retrying the read with a timeout longer than the time it takes to > resample (about 344us with these settings and 4 sensors) also improves > the rate. > > Lower all timing settings to the minimum, configure the filtering to > single sample, and poll the measurement register for at least one period > to improve the data validity on filtered mode. With these changes in > place, out of 100000 reads, a single one failed, ie 99.999% of the data > was valid. > > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Tested-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com> Hi Daniel, gentle ping on this patch. Thanks, Nícolas
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com> On 13/07/2023 17:42, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > Currently, when a controller is configured to use filtered mode, thermal > readings are valid only about 30% of the time. > > Upon testing, it was noticed that lowering any of the interval settings > resulted in an improved rate of valid data. The same was observed when > decreasing the number of samples for each sensor (which also results in > quicker measurements). > > Retrying the read with a timeout longer than the time it takes to > resample (about 344us with these settings and 4 sensors) also improves > the rate. > > Lower all timing settings to the minimum, configure the filtering to > single sample, and poll the measurement register for at least one period > to improve the data validity on filtered mode. With these changes in > place, out of 100000 reads, a single one failed, ie 99.999% of the data > was valid.
On 13/07/2023 17:42, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > Currently, when a controller is configured to use filtered mode, thermal > readings are valid only about 30% of the time. > > Upon testing, it was noticed that lowering any of the interval settings > resulted in an improved rate of valid data. The same was observed when > decreasing the number of samples for each sensor (which also results in > quicker measurements). > > Retrying the read with a timeout longer than the time it takes to > resample (about 344us with these settings and 4 sensors) also improves > the rate. > > Lower all timing settings to the minimum, configure the filtering to > single sample, and poll the measurement register for at least one period > to improve the data validity on filtered mode. With these changes in > place, out of 100000 reads, a single one failed, ie 99.999% of the data > was valid. > > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Tested-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com> > > --- Applied, thanks
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/mediatek/lvts_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/mediatek/lvts_thermal.c index ea89b29ffe5f..1a3cb118ff32 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/mediatek/lvts_thermal.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/mediatek/lvts_thermal.c @@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ #define LVTS_PROTTC(__base) (__base + 0x00CC) #define LVTS_CLKEN(__base) (__base + 0x00E4) -#define LVTS_PERIOD_UNIT ((118 * 1000) / (256 * 38)) -#define LVTS_GROUP_INTERVAL 1 -#define LVTS_FILTER_INTERVAL 1 -#define LVTS_SENSOR_INTERVAL 1 -#define LVTS_HW_FILTER 0x2 +#define LVTS_PERIOD_UNIT 0 +#define LVTS_GROUP_INTERVAL 0 +#define LVTS_FILTER_INTERVAL 0 +#define LVTS_SENSOR_INTERVAL 0 +#define LVTS_HW_FILTER 0x0 #define LVTS_TSSEL_CONF 0x13121110 #define LVTS_CALSCALE_CONF 0x300 #define LVTS_MONINT_CONF 0x8300318C @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ #define LVTS_MSR_IMMEDIATE_MODE 0 #define LVTS_MSR_FILTERED_MODE 1 +#define LVTS_MSR_READ_TIMEOUT_US 400 +#define LVTS_MSR_READ_WAIT_US (LVTS_MSR_READ_TIMEOUT_US / 2) + #define LVTS_HW_SHUTDOWN_MT8195 105000 #define LVTS_MINIMUM_THRESHOLD 20000 @@ -268,6 +271,7 @@ static int lvts_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp) struct lvts_sensor *lvts_sensor = thermal_zone_device_priv(tz); void __iomem *msr = lvts_sensor->msr; u32 value; + int rc; /* * Measurement registers: @@ -280,7 +284,8 @@ static int lvts_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp) * 16 : Valid temperature * 15-0 : Raw temperature */ - value = readl(msr); + rc = readl_poll_timeout(msr, value, value & BIT(16), + LVTS_MSR_READ_WAIT_US, LVTS_MSR_READ_TIMEOUT_US); /* * As the thermal zone temperature will read before the @@ -293,7 +298,7 @@ static int lvts_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp) * functionning temperature and directly jump to a system * shutdown. */ - if (!(value & BIT(16))) + if (rc) return -EAGAIN; *temp = lvts_raw_to_temp(value & 0xFFFF);