On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 12:50 +0300, Nayak, Rajendra wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Kalle Jokiniemi [mailto:kalle.jokiniemi@xxxxxxxxx] > >Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:17 PM > >To: Nayak, Rajendra > >Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Derrick, David; Woodruff, Richard > >Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/04] OMAP3: PM: Disable PER DPLL idle > >before OFF, reduces OFF latency by 20ms > > > >Hi Rajendra, > > > >On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 14:52 +0300, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >> If autoidle for DPLL4 is enabled in the stored scratchpad > >> value of CM_AUTOIDLE_PLL then there is an added delay by > >> the boot ROM when coming out of OFF mode. > >> The patch disables this bitfield in the stored scratchpad value. > >> > >> This should significantly reduce CORE OFF latency and also > >> bring down the threshold for CORE OFF, making OFF affordable > >> even with smaller sleep times. > > > >I did some measurements on RX-51 with this patch, and it seems it does > >not reduce latency, it increases it by few hundred us. > > > >Servicing an empty timer interrupt from off mode (measured from VDD1 > >ramp up to start of VDD1 ramp down): > > > >with dpll4 patch : ~14100us > >without patch : ~13600us > > > >I attached pictures of both situations. > > > >My kernel had only C7 state enabled. > > > >Have you measured the latency effects on SDP or some other board? > > I haven't done the latency measurements on SDP yet, but David had done it > sometime back, using a different codebase though. OK, I also used our internal code base. Though the PM functionality is pretty much the same as in l-o:pm branch. > > Can you explain more on how you are measuring the latency here, I am a bit > confused. This is supposed to bring down the OFF wakeup latency, the sleep latency > remains the same. I'm doing a timer interrupt periodically. Servicing that timer interrupt takes the same amount of time every time. What varies (with the patch) is the transition times from off to active and back to off. In the pictures the top graph shows current and bottom graph shows the VDD1 and VDD2 voltages. I zoomed from the pictures the interval from when VDD1 goes up, to the point when it starts to go down again. So I measured: wakeup latency + interrupt service + sleep latency. - Kalle > > > > >- Kalle > > > > > >> This patch however does not optimize the C state threshold for > >> CORE OFF states based on the new latency. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> > >> --- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c > >b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c > >> index c9407c0..a7159a9 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c > >> @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ void omap3_save_scratchpad_contents(void) > >> cm_read_mod_reg(PLL_MOD, CM_CLKEN); > >> prcm_block_contents.cm_autoidle_pll = > >> cm_read_mod_reg(PLL_MOD, > >OMAP3430_CM_AUTOIDLE_PLL); > >> + /* > >> + * ROM restore takes 20mS longer if PER idle is enabled > >before OFF. > >> + * Clear feature before sleep. The origional idle state is > >> + * restored by software as part of wake procedure. > >> + */ > >> + prcm_block_contents.cm_autoidle_pll &= > >~OMAP3430_AUTO_PERIPH_DPLL_MASK; > >> + > >> prcm_block_contents.cm_clksel1_pll = > >> cm_read_mod_reg(PLL_MOD, > >OMAP3430_CM_CLKSEL1_PLL); > >> prcm_block_contents.cm_clksel2_pll = > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
