Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e: Add support for DFS in J721E A72

[Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@ti.com>]

Hi Nishanth

On 14/12/23 18:21, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 13:26-20231214, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>> Add 2G, 1.5G, 1G, 750M, 500M and 250M as the supported frequencies for
>> A72. This enables support for Dynamic Frequency Scaling (DFS).
>>
> 
> Just curious, since I picked up the PMIC support... can we do dvfs? if
> not, please indicate that in the commit message.
> 

DVFS is not supported on J7 devices, I'll mention that in v2.

>> Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@ti.com>
>> ---
>> Boot logs:
>> https://gist.github.com/nehamalcom/e3c3d0446f0467e7fd28706f7ffaeea8
>>
>> J721E SoC has three different speed grade devices (see [1], 7.5
>> Operating Performance Points) which as of today are indiscernible in
>> software, users of a different speed grade device must manually change
>> the DTS to ensure their maximum speed frequency is supported.
>>
>> [1] https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/tda4vm
> This is critical info in the commit message and in documentation of
> source.
> 

Will put that in the commit message.

> I am also concerned if the table should be separated out as a dtsi and
> included at board.dts level to prevent downstream users going crazy..
> 

Hm... could you elaborate on that more? I don't understand the reasoning of 
including this at a board level for a SoC problem.

> Are you absolutely sure this has no detection logic that can be
> implemented? Almost all TI K3 SoCs seem to have a standard scheme to
> detect the speed grades till date. /me wonders what the heck happened
> here..
> 

Going through the reference manual and data sheet I didn't find anything that 
could differentiate between speed grades, this was confirmed for J7200, I'll do 
the needful to confirm this for J721E as well before v2.

>>
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e.dtsi | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e.dtsi
>> index a200810df54a..fe92879f5812 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e.dtsi
>> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ cpu0: cpu@0 {
>>   			d-cache-line-size = <64>;
>>   			d-cache-sets = <256>;
>>   			next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
>> +			clocks = <&k3_clks 202 2>;
>> +			clock-names = "cpu";
>> +			operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
>>   		};
>>   
>>   		cpu1: cpu@1 {
>> @@ -62,9 +65,41 @@ cpu1: cpu@1 {
>>   			d-cache-line-size = <64>;
>>   			d-cache-sets = <256>;
>>   			next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
>> +			clocks = <&k3_clks 203 0>;
>> +			clock-names = "cpu";
>> +			operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
>>   		};
>>   	};
>>   
>> +	cpu0_opp_table: opp-table {
>> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> Don't you need opp-shared ?

opp-shared would imply that the CPUs switch DFS states together... is that 
something we want?

>> +
>> +		opp6-2000000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <2000000000>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		opp5-1500000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1500000000>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		opp4-1000000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1000000000>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		opp3-750000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <750000000>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		opp2-500000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <500000000>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		opp1-250000000 {
>> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <250000000>;
> Could you add clock-latency-ns ?

Will add in v2.

>> +		};
>> +
>> +	};
>> +
>>   	L2_0: l2-cache0 {
>>   		compatible = "cache";
>>   		cache-level = <2>;
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
> 
> 

Thanks for reviewing!

-- 
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis