On 2024-06-29 18:18, Heiko Stübner wrote:
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 ;-) .
Yes, but we still need new regulator/OPP debugging facilities
that should to be used while writing DTs for new boards and while
verifying already existing board DTs. :)
I'll prepare and send the v2 of this patch, and I'll also start
working on the new patch for those debugging facilities.
