> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Rui
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:03 PM
> To: R, Durgadoss
> Cc: Amit Kachhap; linux...@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-samsung-
> s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; l...@kernel.org; linux-
> a...@vger.kernel.org; jonghwa3....@samsung.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] thermal: Add new thermal trend type to support
> quick cooling
>
> On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 22:55 -0700, R, Durgadoss wrote:
> > Hi Amit/Rui,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amit Kachhap [mailto:amit.kach...@linaro.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:52 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Rui
> > > Cc: linux...@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-samsung-
> > > s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; R, Durgadoss;
> > > l...@kernel.org; linux-a...@vger.kernel.org;
> jonghwa3....@samsung.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] thermal: Add new thermal trend type to
> support
> > > quick cooling
> > >
> > > On 9 November 2012 09:21, Zhang Rui <rui.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 11:56 +0530, Amit Kachhap wrote:
> > > >> On 8 November 2012 11:31, Zhang Rui <rui.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:56 +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> > > >> >> This modification adds 2 new thermal trend type
> > > THERMAL_TREND_RAISE_FULL
> > > >> >> and THERMAL_TREND_DROP_FULL. This thermal trend can be used
> to
> > > quickly
> > > >> >> jump to the upper or lower cooling level instead of incremental
> > > increase
> > > >> >> or decrease.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > IMO, what we need is a new more aggressive cooling governor
> which
> > > always
> > > >> > uses upper limit when the temperature is raising and lower limit
> when
> > > >> > the temperature is dropping.
> > > >> Yes I agree that a new aggressive governor is the best approach but
> > > >> then i thought adding a new trend type is a simple solution to achieve
> > > >> this and since most of the governor logic might be same as the
> > > >> step-wise governor. I have no objection in doing it through governor.
> > > >> >
> > > > hmmm,
> > > > I think a more proper way is to set the cooling state to upper limit
> > > > when it overheats and reduce the cooling state step by step when the
> > > > temperature drops.
> > >
> > > No actually I was thinking of having a simple governor with a feature
> > > like it only sets to upper level and lower level. Also since the
> > > temperature sensor is capable of interrupting for both increase in
> > > threshold(say 100C) and fall in threshold (say 90C), so polling or
> > > step increments is not needed at all.
> > > Currently stepwise governor governor does that so we might change the
> > > macro name as,
> > > THERMAL_TREND_RAISE_STEP,
> > > THERMAL_TREND_DROP_STEP,
> > > THERMAL_TREND_RAISE_MAX,
> > > THERMAL_TREND_DROP_MAX,
> > >
> > > and file step_wise.c can be named as state_wise.c or trend_wise.c.
> >
> > Yes, in this particular case, we neither need to poll nor do step wise
> > operations. But, most of the other sensors need at least one of them.
> >
> > So, I think we can try it this way:
> > if (sensor supports interrupt) {
> > 'always' use RAISE_MAX and DROP_MAX;
> > } else {
> > Do Step wise operations
> > }
> >
> why should the generic thermal layer be aware of this?
>
> IMO, it is the platform thermal driver that is responsible for returning
> THERMAL_TREND_RAISE_STEP or THERMAL_TREND_RAISE_MAX.
>
> and the step_wise governor just takes action based on the return value
> of .get_trend() callback.
Yes, agree with the flow ..
Thanks,
Durga
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{�����x,�ȧ���ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf
