From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50CD21953A9; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 10:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742812444; cv=none; b=DsUqtElZiwmCKXQh/oH4umt7l73uTO+nL8rMUTzD1l107HBP/2of09LgJLoDt7QLD01Cetgthe5UBEBVsy9mOMgOVabhay+u9a41MgHTMXKhnvZ80pWk8ET5GOG7RdrvalWs4WUD/7zJI1YQMniQhSvXlafOIDOhB2sMax/6Tlg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742812444; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yWHN60OPmraLqhtBq5lhjheIQXR/F7iBUPLr7BPi7R8=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=S+n4n1vJE2NJc8xowjeAmJi0I1t7yZjRkmKyBU9N15vkA4h0HqJcdzbAb7Nn3y3kGA7wiY1Jzpihnilteccrv/lFDMS4dflOUGNaZy9XTb3mwlOKx0B7vptMKJhe6fxkBC3kaY54B5DceJigqfjKVm2Gju5HhkYPTwnN8dQQNvU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=tzBmpe6y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="tzBmpe6y" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1742812433; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eI7gPyQYRsRBMrw/lvACQBiN3JsT2YD+lfGEOC2JxYU=; b=tzBmpe6y4C9C1mC187Q2hITuYbsywdQEk9ISEptzHhtaaMWMEXT9wyejk/K91P70RuDFt0 yh7LOLNj0Jig/SUKDRxlqgdmqpmo0oMmeKIK+xwWSbNxWJvDZzxuDLw3c6wLJ/E1WGOGGb pD3aBw//mpNMo6fV55zHDAWQde+ldynndHLyeALFMMmKhlOk4AcDxIJegLTXfDXjcvBPbf 8y2M8OTgqv4oGnaNXRnoe31cVUh3p/UVivt/saEZKVSXm6SlwMWeDd/yvLXwB55zljrROj ibghbX+nD1lzry+Y3YGz+tUT2YxukwHAEsvzw5tGERCd5xpDHei8z2x4TjtOBg== Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:33:53 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Quentin Schulz Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Charkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Remove overdrive-mode OPPs from RK3588J SoC dtsi In-Reply-To: <170e4d8d-33ca-4c53-9ae7-ca9d674540a9@cherry.de> References: <71b7c81b-6a4e-442b-a661-04d63639962a@cherry.de> <960c038ad9f7b83fe14d0ded388b42f7@manjaro.org> <2ece5cca-50ea-4ec9-927e-e757c9c10c18@cherry.de> <4d25c9af4380598b35a0d55e7c77ac3d@manjaro.org> <170e4d8d-33ca-4c53-9ae7-ca9d674540a9@cherry.de> Message-ID: <17b55e889838f2c989bd0efc6528801b@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2025-03-24 11:20, Quentin Schulz wrote: > On 3/24/25 10:53 AM, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2025-03-24 10:23, Quentin Schulz wrote: >>> On 3/23/25 11:19 AM, Dragan Simic wrote: >>>> On 2025-03-21 10:53, Quentin Schulz wrote: >>>>> On 3/21/25 4:28 AM, Dragan Simic wrote: >>>>>> The differences in the vendor-approved CPU and GPU OPPs for the >>>>>> standard >>>>>> Rockchip RK3588 variant [1] and the industrial Rockchip RK3588J >>>>>> variant [2] >>>>>> come from the latter, presumably, supporting an extended >>>>>> temperature range >>>>>> that's usually associated with industrial applications, despite >>>>>> the two SoC >>>>>> variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit for the allowed >>>>>> ambient >>>>>> temperature for both variants.  However, the lower temperature >>>>>> limit is >>>>> >>>>> RK3588 is rated for 0-80°C, RK3588J for -40-85°C, c.f. Recommended >>>>> Operating Conditions, Table 3-2, Ambient Operating Temperature. >>>> >>>> Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "specifying the same upper >>>> limit", because having a lower negative temperature limit could >>>> hardly >>>> put the RK3588J in danger of overheating or running hotter. :) >>> >>> """ >>> despite the two SoC variant datasheets specifying the same upper >>> limit >>> for the allowed temperature for both variants >>> """ >>> >>> is incorrect. The whole range is different, yes it's only a 5°C >>> difference for the upper limit, but they still are different. >> >> I just commented on this separately, with a couple of datasheet >> screenshots, before I saw your latest response.  Please, have >> a look at that message. > > I see, I had a v1.3 datasheet opened: > > https://github.com/FanX-Tek/rk3588-TRM-and-Datasheet/blob/master/Rockchip_RK3588_Datasheet_V1.3-20220328.pdf Yup, the v1.6 of the RK3588 datasheet increased the upper ambient temperature limit from 80 to 85 oC. > Interestingly, it seems the RK3588S (still?) has a smaller operating > range: > > https://www.armboard.cn/download/Rockchip_RK3588S_Datasheet_V1.6-20240821.pdf Oh, that's quite interesting, I had the v1.5 as the newest version. The v1.6 of the RK3588S datasheet actually lowered the upper ambient temperature limit from 85 down to 80 oC.