* [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter @ 2020-05-07 11:45 Bernard Zhao 2020-05-07 15:42 ` Lukasz Luba 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Bernard Zhao @ 2020-05-07 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lukasz Luba, Kukjin Kim, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-pm, linux-samsung-soc, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: opensource.kernel, Bernard Zhao In function create_timings_aligned, all the max is to use dmc->min_tck->xxx, aligned with val dmc->timings->xxx. But the dmc->timings->tFAW use dmc->min_tck->tXP? Maybe this point is wrong parameter useing. Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com> --- drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c index 81a1b1d01683..22a43d662833 100644 --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int create_timings_aligned(struct exynos5_dmc *dmc, u32 *reg_timing_row, /* power related timings */ val = dmc->timings->tFAW / clk_period_ps; val += dmc->timings->tFAW % clk_period_ps ? 1 : 0; - val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tXP); + val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tFAW); reg = &timing_power[0]; *reg_timing_power |= TIMING_VAL2REG(reg, val); -- 2.26.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter 2020-05-07 11:45 [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter Bernard Zhao @ 2020-05-07 15:42 ` Lukasz Luba 2020-05-08 14:46 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Lukasz Luba @ 2020-05-07 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernard Zhao, Kukjin Kim, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-pm, linux-samsung-soc, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: opensource.kernel Hi Bernard, On 5/7/20 12:45 PM, Bernard Zhao wrote: > In function create_timings_aligned, all the max is to use > dmc->min_tck->xxx, aligned with val dmc->timings->xxx. > But the dmc->timings->tFAW use dmc->min_tck->tXP? > Maybe this point is wrong parameter useing. > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com> > --- > drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > index 81a1b1d01683..22a43d662833 100644 > --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int create_timings_aligned(struct exynos5_dmc *dmc, u32 *reg_timing_row, > /* power related timings */ > val = dmc->timings->tFAW / clk_period_ps; > val += dmc->timings->tFAW % clk_period_ps ? 1 : 0; > - val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tXP); > + val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tFAW); > reg = &timing_power[0]; > *reg_timing_power |= TIMING_VAL2REG(reg, val); > > Good catch! Indeed this should be a dmc->min_tck->tFAW used for clamping. It didn't show up in testing because the frequency values based on which the 'clk_period_ps' are calculated are sane. Check the dump below: [ 5.458227] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=6060 [ 5.461743] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=5 [ 5.465273] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=4854 [ 5.470101] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=6 [ 5.473668] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=3636 [ 5.478507] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=7 [ 5.482072] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=2421 [ 5.486951] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=11 [ 5.490531] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1841 [ 5.495439] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=14 [ 5.499113] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1579 [ 5.503877] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=16 [ 5.507476] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1373 [ 5.512368] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=19 [ 5.515968] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1212 [ 5.520826] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=21 That's why in the existing configuration it does not harm (the calculated 'val' is always >= 5) the board. But I think this patch should be applied (after small changes in the commit message). @Krzysztof could you have a look on the commit message or take the patch with small adjustment in the description, please? I conditionally give (because of this description): Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Thank you Bernard for reporting and fixing this. Regards, Lukasz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter 2020-05-07 15:42 ` Lukasz Luba @ 2020-05-08 14:46 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2020-05-08 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lukasz Luba Cc: Bernard Zhao, Kukjin Kim, linux-pm, linux-samsung-soc, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, opensource.kernel On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:42:46PM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Bernard, > > > On 5/7/20 12:45 PM, Bernard Zhao wrote: > > In function create_timings_aligned, all the max is to use > > dmc->min_tck->xxx, aligned with val dmc->timings->xxx. > > But the dmc->timings->tFAW use dmc->min_tck->tXP? > > Maybe this point is wrong parameter useing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com> > > --- > > drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > index 81a1b1d01683..22a43d662833 100644 > > --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int create_timings_aligned(struct exynos5_dmc *dmc, u32 *reg_timing_row, > > /* power related timings */ > > val = dmc->timings->tFAW / clk_period_ps; > > val += dmc->timings->tFAW % clk_period_ps ? 1 : 0; > > - val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tXP); > > + val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tFAW); > > reg = &timing_power[0]; > > *reg_timing_power |= TIMING_VAL2REG(reg, val); > > > > Good catch! Indeed this should be a dmc->min_tck->tFAW used for > clamping. > > It didn't show up in testing because the frequency values based on > which the 'clk_period_ps' are calculated are sane. > Check the dump below: > > [ 5.458227] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=6060 > [ 5.461743] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=5 > [ 5.465273] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=4854 > [ 5.470101] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=6 > [ 5.473668] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=3636 > [ 5.478507] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=7 > [ 5.482072] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=2421 > [ 5.486951] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=11 > [ 5.490531] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1841 > [ 5.495439] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=14 > [ 5.499113] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1579 > [ 5.503877] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=16 > [ 5.507476] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1373 > [ 5.512368] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=19 > [ 5.515968] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1212 > [ 5.520826] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=21 > > That's why in the existing configuration it does not harm > (the calculated 'val' is always >= 5) the board. > > But I think this patch should be applied (after small changes in the > commit message). > > @Krzysztof could you have a look on the commit message or take the > patch with small adjustment in the description, please? > > I conditionally give (because of this description): > > Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Thanks for review. I applied patch with CC-stable and adjusred commit msg. Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-08 14:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-05-07 11:45 [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter Bernard Zhao 2020-05-07 15:42 ` Lukasz Luba 2020-05-08 14:46 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).