On 14.11.2024 11:48 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 06:39:48PM +0530, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/2024 9:12 PM, Brian Masney wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:58:31PM +0530, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>>> + cpu0_opp_table: opp-table-cpu0 {
>>>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>>>> + opp-shared;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu0_opp_1267mhz: opp-1267200000 {
>>>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1267200000>;
>>>> + opp-peak-kBps = <6220800 29491200>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu0_opp_1363mhz: opp-1363200000 {
>>>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1363200000>;
>>>> + opp-peak-kBps = <6220800 29491200>;
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> + cpu4_opp_table: opp-table-cpu4 {
>>>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>>>> + opp-shared;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu4_opp_1267mhz: opp-1267200000 {
>>>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1267200000>;
>>>> + opp-peak-kBps = <6220800 29491200>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu4_opp_1363mhz: opp-1363200000 {
>>>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1363200000>;
>>>> + opp-peak-kBps = <6220800 29491200>;
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> There's no functional differences in the cpu0 and cpu4 opp tables. Can
>>> a single table be used?
>>>
>>> This aligns with my recollection that this particular SoC only has the
>>> gold cores.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Brian for your review. Sorry for the delayed response.
>>
>> We require separate OPP tables for CPU0 and CPU4 to allow independent
>> scaling of DDR and L3 frequencies for each CPU domain, with the final
>> DDR and L3 frequencies being an aggregate of both.
>>
>> If we use a single OPP table for both CPU domains, then _allocate_opp_table() [1]
>> won't be invoked for CPU4. As a result both CPU devices will end up in sharing
>> the same ICC path handle, which could lead to one CPU device overwriting the bandwidth
>> votes of other.
Oh that's a fun find.. clocks get the same treatment.. very bad,
but may explain some schroedingerbugs.
Taking a peek at some code paths, wouldn't dropping opp-shared
solve our issues? dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() overrides it
Konrad
