On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:41 AM Dragan Simic dsimic@manjaro.org wrote:
Hello Heiko,
On 2024-05-31 20:40, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2024, 00:48:45 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
On 2024-05-29 18:27, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 1:20 AM Dragan Simic dsimic@manjaro.org wrote:
Correct the specified regulator-min-microvolt value for the buck DCDC_REG2 regulator, which is part of the Rockchip RK809 PMIC, in the Pine64 Quartz64 Model B board dts. According to the RK809 datasheet, version 1.01, this regulator is capable of producing voltages as low as 0.5 V on its output, instead of going down to 0.9 V only, which is additionally confirmed by the regulator-min-microvolt values found in the board dts files for the other supported boards that use the same RK809 PMIC.
This allows the DVFS to clock the GPU on the Quartz64 Model B below 700 MHz, all the way down to 200 MHz, which saves some power and reduces the amount of generated heat a bit, improving the thermal headroom and possibly improving the bursty CPU and GPU performance on this board.
This also eliminates the following warnings in the kernel log:
core: _opp_supported_by_regulators: OPP minuV: 825000 maxuV: 825000, not supported by regulator panfrost fde60000.gpu: _opp_add: OPP not supported by regulators (200000000) core: _opp_supported_by_regulators: OPP minuV: 825000 maxuV: 825000, not supported by regulator panfrost fde60000.gpu: _opp_add: OPP not supported by regulators (300000000) core: _opp_supported_by_regulators: OPP minuV: 825000 maxuV: 825000, not supported by regulator panfrost fde60000.gpu: _opp_add: OPP not supported by regulators (400000000) core: _opp_supported_by_regulators: OPP minuV: 825000 maxuV: 825000, not supported by regulator panfrost fde60000.gpu: _opp_add: OPP not supported by regulators (600000000)
Fixes: dcc8c66bef79 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: add Pine64 Quartz64-B device tree") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reported-By: Diederik de Haas didi.debian@cknow.org Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic dsimic@manjaro.org
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3566-quartz64-b.dts | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3566-quartz64-b.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3566-quartz64-b.dts index 26322a358d91..b908ce006c26 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3566-quartz64-b.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3566-quartz64-b.dts @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ vdd_gpu: DCDC_REG2 { regulator-name = "vdd_gpu"; regulator-always-on; regulator-boot-on;
regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>;
regulator-min-microvolt = <500000>;The constraints here are supposed to be the constraints of the consumer, not the provider. The latter is already known by the implementation.
So if the GPU can go down to 0.825V or 0.81V even (based on the datasheet), this should say the corresponding value. Surely the GPU can't go down to 0.5V?
Can you send another fix for it?
I can confirm that the voltage of the power supply of GPU found inside the RK3566 can be as low as 0.81 V, according to the datasheet, or as low as 0.825 V, according to the GPU OPPs found in rk356x.dtsi.
If we want the regulator-min-microvolt parameter to reflect the contraint of the GPU as the consumer, which I agree with, we should do that for other RK3566-based boards as well, and almost surely for the boards based on the RK3568, too.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.
The binding does define: regulator-min-microvolt: description: smallest voltage consumers may set
This does not seem to describe it as a constraint solely of the consumer. At least the wording sounds way more flexible there.
Also any regulator _could_ have multiple consumers, whose value would it need then.
The way I see it, the regulator-min-microvolt and regulator-max-microvolt parameters should be configured in a way that protects the consumer(s) of the particular voltage regulator against undervoltage and overvoltage conditions, which may be useful in some corner cases.
If there are multiple consumers, which in this case may actually happen (IIRC, some boards use the same regulator for the GPU and NPU portions of the SoC), the situation becomes far from ideal, because the consumers might have different voltage requirements, but that's pretty much an unavoidable compromise.
As Dragan mentioned, the min/max voltage constraints are there to prevent the implementation from setting a voltage that would make the hardware inoperable, either temporarily or permanently. So the range set here should be the intersection of the permitted ranges of all consumers on that power rail.
Now if that intersection happens to be an empty set, then it would up to the implementation to do proper lock-outs. Hopefully no one designs such hardware as it's too easy to fry some part of the hardware.
While true, setting it to the lowest the regulator can do in the original fix patch, might've been a bit much and a saner value might be better.
Agreed, but the value was selected according to what the other RK3566-based boards use, to establish some kind of consistency. Now, there's a good chance for the second pass, so to speak, which should establish another different state, but also consistent. :)
This would ensure consistency, but I'd like to know are all those resulting patches going to be accepted before starting to prepare them? There will be a whole bunch of small patches.
Hmm, though I'd say that would be one patch per soc?
I.e. you're setting the min-voltage of _one_ regulator used on each board to a value to support the defined OPPs.
I.e. in my mind you'd end up with: arm64: dts: rockchip: set better min voltage for vdd_gpu on rk356x boards
And setting the lower voltage to reach that lower OPP on all affected rk356x boards.
Yes, the same thoughts have already crossed my mind, but I thought we'd like those patches to also include Fixes tags, so they also get propagated into the long-term kernel versions? In that case, we'd need one patch per board, to have a clear relation to the commits referenced in the Fixes tags.
OTOH, if we don't want the patches to be propagated into the long-term kernel versions, then having one patch per SoC would be perfectly fine.
It's really up to Heiko, but personally I don't think it's that important to have them backported. These would be correctness patches, but don't really affect functionality.
Regards ChenYu