On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:07:56PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 4/9/24 20:04, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:12:00AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 8:23 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > > > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 05:12:46PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/24 04:56, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > > From: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Usually, speedbin 0 is the "super SKU", a.k.a the one which can clock > > > > > > > the highest. Falling back to it when things go wrong is largely > > > > > > > suboptimal, as more often than not, the top frequencies are not > > > > > > > supposed to work on other bins. > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't it better to just return an error here instead of trying to guess > > > > > > which speedbin to use? > > > > > > > > > > Not sure. I'd rather better compatibility for e.g. booting up a new > > > > > laptop with just dt. > > > > > > > > New speedbin can have lower max speed, so by attempting to run it at > > > > higher freq you might be breaking it. > > > > > > Usually there are some OPPs in common to all speedbins, so picking a > > > freq from that set would seem like the safe thing to do > > > > Well, the issue is about an uknown speed bin. So in theory we know > > nothing about the set of speeds itsupports. My point is that we should > > simplfy fail in such case. > > Or we could allow e.g. the lowest frequency (or 2) which if often shared > across the board to work, giving a compromise between OOBE and sanity That's also an option. But we should not be using existing speed table for the unknown bin. -- With best wishes Dmitry
