Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] memory: tegra186-emc: Support non-bpmp icc scaling

[Jon Hunter]

On 12/11/2025 11:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/11/2025 11:59, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > On 12/11/2025 07:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2025 07:18, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > On 11/11/2025 23:17, Aaron Kling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Alright, I think I've got the picture of what's going on now. The
> > > > > standard arm64 defconfig enables the t194 pcie driver as a module. And
> > > > > my simple busybox ramdisk that I use for mainline regression testing
> > > > > isn't loading any modules. If I set the pcie driver to built-in, I
> > > > > replicate the issue. And I don't see the issue on my normal use case,
> > > > > because I have the dt changes as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it appears that the pcie driver submits icc bandwidth. And without
> > > > > cpufreq submitting bandwidth as well, the emc driver gets a very low
> > > > > number and thus sets a very low emc freq. The question becomes... what
> > > > > to do about it? If the related dt changes were submitted to
> > > > > linux-next, everything should fall into place. And I'm not sure where
> > > > > this falls on the severity scale since it doesn't full out break boot
> > > > > or prevent operation.
> > > >
> > > > Where are the related DT changes? If we can get these into -next and
> > > > lined up to be merged for v6.19, then that is fine. However, we should
> > >
> > > It's still breaking all the users then.
> >
> > Yes indeed.
>
>
> Please test if dropping sync_state from memory controller drivers helps
> you. This might be the easiest fix and it is also known solution when
> there are no users.

I had a quick look, but I believe that sync_state was first added for 
Tegra234 devices. The current issue is with Tegra194, so I am not sure 
we can simply drop it.

Jon

--
nvpublic