From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759135AbcLPHh3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:37:29 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33594 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752870AbcLPHh1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:37:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:37:20 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Doug Anderson Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Javier Martinez Canillas , Arjun K V , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Kukjin Kim , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Andreas Faerber , Thomas Abraham , Ben Gamari , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alim Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Add missing CPU frequencies for Exynos5422/5800 Message-ID: <20161216073720.GA3489@kozik-lap> References: <5220084.l31t5oJbsy@amdc3058> <26ffeee4-ff43-b3d3-3267-5fcbc50e2974@osg.samsung.com> <2340115.HEG9AYUCMD@amdc3058> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > . > > 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 > > > { 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? 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. Best regards, Krzysztof