Am Samstag, 29. Juni 2024, 17:39:34 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic: > On 2024-06-29 17:25, Dragan Simic wrote: > > On 2024-06-29 17:10, Heiko Stübner wrote: > >> Am Samstag, 29. Juni 2024, 07:11:24 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic: > >> > >>> +#ifndef RK356X_GPU_NPU_SHARED_REGULATOR > >> > >> is there some reason for this duplicating of opps? > >> > >> The regulator framework should pick the lowest supported voltage > >> anyway, so it seems you're just extending them upwards a bit. > >> > >> So I really don't so why we'd need to sets here. > > > > The reason is improved strictness. Having the exact GPU OPP voltages > > required for the boards whose GPU regulators can provide those exact > > voltages makes it possible to detect misconfigurations much easier, > > just like it was the case with the board dts misconfiguration that > > resulted in the recent DCDC_REG2 patch. [1] > > > > If we had GPU OPP voltage ranges in place instead, the aforementioned > > issue would probably remain undetected for some time. It wouldn't be > > the end of the world, :) of course, but the resulting increased power > > consumption isn't one of the desired outcomes. > > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/e70742ea2df432bf57b3f7de542d81ca22b0da2f.1716225483.git.dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > On second thought, after seeing that the RK3399 CPU and GPU OPPs > already specify voltage ranges, I think it would be better to drop > the distinction between the separate strict voltages and the voltage > ranges in this patch, yes, that was what I was trying to say :-) Also it makes the OPPs less cluttered. Also dt is firmware, I do expect people to be reasonably knowledgeable if they mess around with their boards OPPs ;-) .
