mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Chen <peter.chen@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Akash Kumar <akash.kumar@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: dwc3: Update nominal max votes for qcom usb
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 01:00:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <avGLwjn6yZRqpBhF@hu-petche-lv.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261105100626.2003771-1-akash.kumar@oss.qualcomm.com>

On 26-11-05 15:32:16, Akash Kumar wrote:
> Increase the nominal max USB memory bandwidth vote to let DDR scale
> higher within its nominal corner, fixing glitches seen during
> simultaneous USB audio use cases.
> 
> USB_MEMORY_PEAK_SS_BW is raised from 2500 MB/s to 4500 MB/s (+2000
> MB/s, ~1.8x). This ICC vote does not by itself determine DDR
> frequency; the vote-to-frequency mapping is platform-specific and
> comes from each target's interconnect/OPP table. On the tested
> targets, the old vote kept DDR pinned at 1 GHz within the nominal
> corner, even though DDR can run at 1.5 GHz (+50%) within the same
> corner. At 1 GHz, glitches were observed during multiple concurrent
> USB audio use cases.

How we decide which value is suitable, eg, you set 4500 here?
If DDR can run higher, and we have more stress test case like UAS
transfer + UVC transfer, do we need this value to be higher?

Is it okay we just set the highest value for USB, there is a platform
OPP table, and we let ICC choose the highest value for USB at specific 
platform?

Peter

> 
> Tested internally on RB3, RB4, RB8, Shikra, and other KLM targets.
> With the updated vote, DDR is allowed to run at the higher nominal
> frequency, and the following were measured (not merely projected):
> 
> - USB memory throughput: 125 MB/s -> 145 MB/s (+16%)
> - RTD-USBC audio latency: 17.9 ms -> 16.6 ms (-7.3%)
> 
> RTD-USBC is the round-trip audio latency measured over a USB-C audio
> path; lower is better. Note the +50% DDR frequency headroom does not
> map linearly to the +16% throughput gain, since throughput is also
> bounded by other factors along the USB/DDR path; the frequency
> increase is necessary but not sufficient to explain the full gain on
> its own.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akash Kumar <akash.kumar@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> v2: Added Details of targets Tested.
>     Added details for usb vote.
>     Added KPI Details.
>     Dropped USB AVG BW vote change which is not needed.
> 
> Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260611081831.2743464-1-akash.kumar@oss.qualcomm.com/
> ---
>  drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> index ac68b4218b56..3a19385969dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
>  #define USB_MEMORY_AVG_HS_BW MBps_to_icc(240)
>  #define USB_MEMORY_PEAK_HS_BW MBps_to_icc(700)
>  #define USB_MEMORY_AVG_SS_BW  MBps_to_icc(1000)
> -#define USB_MEMORY_PEAK_SS_BW MBps_to_icc(2500)
> +#define USB_MEMORY_PEAK_SS_BW MBps_to_icc(4500)
>  #define APPS_USB_AVG_BW 0
>  #define APPS_USB_PEAK_BW MBps_to_icc(40)
>  
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> 

-- 

Thanks,
Peter Chen

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-11-09  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-11-05 10:02 Akash Kumar
2026-11-05 15:41 ` Konrad Dybcio
2026-11-08  7:22   ` Akash Kumar
2026-11-11  4:06     ` Krishna Kurapati
2026-11-09  9:00 ` Peter Chen [this message]
     [not found]   ` <f1beca15-91da-47df-aaa8-a2a816087b88@oss.qualcomm.com>
2026-11-11  3:29     ` Peter Chen
2026-11-11  3:31 ` Peter Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=avGLwjn6yZRqpBhF@hu-petche-lv.qualcomm.com \
    --to=peter.chen@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=akash.kumar@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=andersson@kernel.org \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=konradybcio@kernel.org \
    --cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®