linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: update the cpus capacity-dmips-mhz

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20260128-topic-sm8650-upstream-cpu-props-v1-1-9fbb5efe7f07@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:33:16 +0100
From: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: update the cpus
 capacity-dmips-mhz

After some more advanced benchmarks with Integer, Floaring Point,
Encryption, Compression, NEON, ... on the A520, A720 and X4 cpus,
the median gain with the same frequency range is:
- 281% of A720 over A520
- 126% of X4 over A720

When adjusted with the frequency delta, we get better values
describing the difference in capacity, showing the weakness of
the A520 designed for very small tasks while the A720 and X4
are much more powerful.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
index f8e1950a74ac..8671c25dd68f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ cpu2: cpu@200 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_200>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1792>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <2909>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <238>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 3>;
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ cpu3: cpu@300 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_300>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1792>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <2909>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <238>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 3>;
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ cpu4: cpu@400 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_400>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1792>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <2909>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <238>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 3>;
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ cpu5: cpu@500 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_500>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1792>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <2909>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <238>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 1>;
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ cpu6: cpu@600 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_600>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1792>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <2909>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <238>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 1>;
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ cpu7: cpu@700 {
 
 			enable-method = "psci";
 			next-level-cache = <&l2_700>;
-			capacity-dmips-mhz = <1894>;
+			capacity-dmips-mhz = <3591>;
 			dynamic-power-coefficient = <588>;
 
 			qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 2>;

-- 
2.34.1