Hi Heiko,[...]
On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 11:30 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Samstag, 15. Februar 2025, 19:59:44 MEZ schrieb Alexey Charkov:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:32 PM Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/17/24 8:28 PM, Alexey Charkov wrote:
+ };
+
+ cluster2_opp_table: opp-table-cluster2 {
+ compatible = "operating-points-v2";
+ opp-shared;
+
+ opp-1416000000 {
+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1416000000>;
+ opp-microvolt = <750000 750000 950000>;
+ clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
+ };
+ opp-1608000000 {
+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1608000000>;
+ opp-microvolt = <787500 787500 950000>;
+ clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
+ };
+ opp-1800000000 {
+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1800000000>;
+ opp-microvolt = <875000 875000 950000>;
+ clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
+ };
+ opp-2016000000 {
+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <2016000000>;
+ opp-microvolt = <950000 950000 950000>;
+ clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
+ };
opp-1800000000 and opp-2016000000 should be removed as well.
Did I misunderstand what Rockchip did here? Adding Kever in Cc at least
for awareness on Rockchip side :)
I guess another option could be to mark those above as
turbo-mode;
though no clue what this would entail. From a glance at cpufreq, it
seems that for Rockchip since we use the default cpufreq-dt, it would
mark those as unusable, so essentially a no-op, so better remove them
entirely?
I believe the opp core just marks 'turbo-mode' opps as
CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ, and cpufreq-dt only passes that flag along to the
cpufreq core. But then to actually use those boost frequencies I would
guess the governor needs to somehow know the power/thermal constraints
of the chip?.. Don't know where that is defined.
personally I don't believe in "boost" frequencies - except when they are
declared officially.
Rockchip for the longest time maintains that running the chip outside
the declared power/rate envelope can reduce its overall lifetime.
So for Rockchip in mainline a "it runs stable for me" has never been a
suitable reasoning ;-) .
My key concern here was perhaps that we are looking at a file inside
the Rockchip source tree which looks relevant by the name of it, but
doesn't actually get included anywhere for any of the boards. This may
or may not constitute an endorsement by Rockchip of any OPPs listed
there :-D
I haven't seen a TRM for the J variant, nor do I have a board with
RK3588J to run tests, so it would be great if Kever could chime in
with how these OPPs are different from the others (or not).
So while the situation might be strange for the rk3588j, I really only want
correct frequencies here please - not any pseudo "turbo freqs".
I don't care that much what people do on their own device{s/trees}, but
the devicetrees we supply centrally (and to u-boot, etc) should only
contain frequencies vetted by the manufacturer.
Fair enough. Let's just try and get another data point on whether
these frequencies are vetted or not.