[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABjd4Yyt6WiY5E5DbyjnboFvsTpp33dydkGMF7AwMB9m7bfX6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:55:28 +0400
From: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, heiko@...ech.de,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add OPP voltage ranges to RK3399
OP1 SoC dtsi
Hi Dragan,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 11:50 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org> wrote:
>
> Add support for voltage ranges to the CPU, GPU and DMC OPPs defined in the
> SoC dtsi for Rockchip OP1, as a variant of the Rockchip RK3399. This may be
> useful if there are any OP1-based boards whose associated voltage regulators
> are unable to deliver the exact voltages; otherwise, it causes no functional
> changes to the resulting OPP voltages at runtime.
>
> These changes cannot cause stability issues or any kind of damage, because
> it's perfectly safe to use the highest voltage from an OPP group for each OPP
> in the same group. The only possible negative effect of using higher voltages
> is wasted energy in form of some additionally generated heat.
>
> Reported-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-op1.dtsi | 52 ++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-op1.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-op1.dtsi
> index b24bff511513..aa79219471d3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-op1.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-op1.dtsi
> @@ -12,125 +12,125 @@ cluster0_opp: opp-table-0 {
>
> opp00 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <408000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <800000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <800000 800000 1150000>;
> clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
> };
> opp01 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <600000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <825000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <825000 825000 1150000>;
> };
> opp02 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <816000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <850000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <850000 850000 1150000>;
> };
> opp03 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1008000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <900000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <900000 900000 1150000>;
> };
> opp04 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1200000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <975000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <975000 975000 1150000>;
> };
> opp05 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1416000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <1100000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <1100000 1100000 1150000>;
> };
> opp06 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1512000000>;
> - opp-microvolt = <1150000>;
> + opp-microvolt = <1150000 1150000 1150000>;
> };
> };
>
> cluster1_opp: opp-table-1 {
> compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> opp-shared;
>
> opp00 {
> opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <408000000>;
> opp-microvolt = <800000>;
> - clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
> + clock-latency-ns = <40000 40000 1250000>;
Did you mean to update opp-microvolt instead?
Speaking of which, this single opp having clock-latency-ns while none
of the others do (except the first one in cluster0) looks weird.
Best regards,
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists