[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b6e8d3a-ec7a-db5d-dd0e-ef9d1480f80a@fivetechno.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:08:07 +0100
From: Markus Reichl <m.reichl@...etechno.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Arjun K V <arjun.kv@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andreas Faerber <afaerber@...e.de>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
Ben Gamari <ben@...rt-cactus.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alim <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Add missing CPU frequencies for Exynos5422/5800
Am 16.12.2016 um 08:37 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:52:58PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> [ I added Arjun to Cc:, maybe he can help in explaining this issue
>>> (unfortunately Inderpal's email is no longer working). ]
>>>
>>> Please also note that on Exynos5422/5800 SoCs the same ARM rail
>>> voltage is used for 1.9 GHz & 2.0 GHz OPPs as for the 1.8 GHz one.
>>> IOW if the problem exists it is already present in the mainline
>>> kernel.
>>
>> Interesting. In the ChromeOS tree I see significantly higher voltages
>> needed... Note that one might naively look at
>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/chromeos-3.8/drivers/cpufreq/exynos5420-cpufreq.c#178>.
>>
>> 1362500, /* L0 2100 */
>> 1312500, /* L1 2000 */
>>
>> ..but, amazingly enough those voltages aren't used at all. Surprise!
>>
>> I believe that the above numbers are actually not used and the ASV
>> numbers are used instead. See
>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/chromeos-3.8/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/asv-exynos542x.h#452>
>>
>> { 2100000,
>> 1350000, 1350000, 1350000, 1350000, 1350000,
>> 1337500, 1325000, 1312500, 1300000, 1287500,
>> 1275000, 1262500, 1250000, 1237500 },
>>
>> I believe that interpretation there is: some bins of the CPU can run
>> at 2.1 GHz just fine at 1.25 V but others need up to 1.35V.
>
> That is definitely the case. One could just look at vendors ASV table
> (for 1.9 GHz):
> { 1900000, 1300000, 1287500, 1262500, 1237500, 1225000, 1212500,
> 1200000, 1187500, 1175000, 1162500, 1150000,
> 1137500, 1125000, 1112500, 1112500},
>
> The theoretical difference is up to 1.875V! From my experiments I saw
> BIN1 chips which should be the same... but some working on 1.2V, some on
> 1.225V (@1.9 GHz). I didn't see any requiring higher voltages but that
> does not mean that there aren't such...
>
>> ...so if you're running at 2.1 GHz at 1.25V then perhaps you're just
>> running on a CPU from a nice bin?
I've been running the proposed frequency/voltage combinations without any
stability problems on my XU4, XU3 and even XU3-lite ( I did not delete the
nodes on XU3-lite dts) with make -j8 kernel and ssvb-cpuburn.
The chips are poorly cooled, especially the XU4 and quickly step down.
>
> Would be nice to see a dump of PKG_ID and AUX_INFO chipid registers
> along with name of tested board. Because the "Tested on XU3" is not
> sufficient.
If you point me to how to read these values out, I will publish them.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
Markus Reichl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists