Re: [PATCHv1 0/3] Odroid c2 missing regulator linking
From: Neil Armstrong
Date: Fri Aug 30 2019 - 05:50:08 EST
On 30/08/2019 11:34, Anand Moon wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 13:01, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2019 20:35, Anand Moon wrote:
>>> Hi Neil,
>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 13:58, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 28/08/2019 22:27, Anand Moon wrote:
>>>>> Below small changes help re-configure or fix missing inter linking
>>>>> of regulator node.
>>>>> Changes based top on my prevoius series.
>>>> For the serie:
>>>> Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>>>  https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11113091/
>>>>> TOOD: Add support for DVFS GXBB odroid board in next series.
>>>> I'm curious how you will do this !
>>> I was just studying you previous series on how you have implemented
>>> this feature for C1, N2 and VIM3 boards.
>>>  https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11114125/
>>> I started gathering key inputs needed for this ie *clk / pwm*
>>> like VDDCPU and VDDE clk changes.
>>> But it looks like of the complex clk framework needed, so I leave this to the
>>> expert like your team of developers to do this much quick and efficiently.
>> On GXBB, GXL, GXM and AXG SoCs, CPU Frequency setting and PWM Regulator setup is
>> done by the SCPI Co-processor via the SCPI protocol.
>> Thus, we should not handle it from Linux, and even if we could, we don't have the
>> registers documentation of the CPU clusters clock tree.
> Ok thanks.
>> SCPI works fine on all tested devices, except Odroid-C2, because Hardkernel left
>> the > 1.5GHz freq in the initial SCPI tables loaded by the BL2, i.e. packed with U-Boot.
>> Nowadays they have removed the bad frequencies, but still some devices uses the old
>> But in the SCPI case we trust the table returned by the firmware and use it as-in,
>> and there is no (simple ?) way to override the table and set a max frequency.
>> This is why we disabled SCPI.
>> See https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9500175/
> I have quickly enable this on my board and here the cpufreq info
> [alarm@alarm ~]$ cpupower frequency-info
> analyzing CPU 0:
> driver: scpi-cpufreq
> CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3
> CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 1 2 3
> maximum transition latency: 200 us
> hardware limits: 100.0 MHz - 1.54 GHz
> available frequency steps: 100.0 MHz, 250 MHz, 500 MHz, 1000 MHz,
> 1.30 GHz, 1.54 GHz
> available cpufreq governors: conservative ondemand userspace
> powersave performance schedutil
> current policy: frequency should be within 100.0 MHz and 1.54 GHz.
> The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
> within this range.
> current CPU frequency: Unable to call hardware
> current CPU frequency: 250 MHz (asserted by call to kernel)
> I did some simple stress testing and observed the freq scaling is
> working fine when cpufreq governor is set to ondemand.
> Powertop output.
> Package | CPU 0
> 100 MHz 5.2% | 100 MHz 1.6%
> 250 MHz 4.4% | 250 MHz 4.3%
> 500 MHz 2.6% | 500 MHz 2.4%
> 1000 MHz 0.5% | 1000 MHz 0.3%
> 1296 MHz 0.2% | 1296 MHz 0.1%
> 1.54 GHz 0.2% | 1.54 GHz 0.1%
> Idle 86.9% | Idle 91.2%
> Here the output on the linaro's pm-qa testing for cpufreq.
>  https://pastebin.com/h880WATn
> Almost all the test case pass with this one as off now.
Thanks for passing the tests, no doubt it works with a recent
bootloader binary, but we can't leave alone the first Odroid-C2
devices loaded with an incorrect SCPI table.
I'll let Kevin decide for the following.
> Best Regards