Hi Kukjin,
Thanks for the patch.
With this, the BogoMIPS value for both cores is the same (1992)
(tested on Origen board).
Regards,
Sachin
On 22/02/2012, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sachin Kamat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
> Hi,
>
>> The mismatch in BogoMIPS value between two cores (992 and 1992) is not
>> specific to Origen board.
>> The same is observed on SMDKV310 board as well. It looks like a common
>> Exynos machine problem.
>>
>> Including the mailing list for wider dissemination.
>>
>>
> I think, you can get the right value of BogoMIPS with following.
> If any problems, please let me know.
>
> As a note, let me send following patch after done of sorting for other
> exynos5250 arch patches.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Kgene.
> --
> Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer,
> SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
>
> From: Changhwan Youn <chaos.youn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ARM: EXYNOS: fix cycle count for periodic mode of clock event timers
>
> EXYNOS SOC series use MCT for kernel timer and MCT has two types of
> clock event timers, which are mct-comp and mct-tick.
> Because the clock rate of each event timer is diffent from the other,
> this patch fixes cycles_per_jiffy for each timer's periodic mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Changhwan Youn <chaos.youn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c
> index 667a8e9..2ded1ff 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c
> @@ -29,12 +29,13 @@
> #include <mach/regs-mct.h>
> #include <asm/mach/time.h>
>
> +#define TICK_BASE_CNT 1
> +
> enum {
> MCT_INT_SPI,
> MCT_INT_PPI
> };
>
> -static unsigned long clk_cnt_per_tick;
> static unsigned long clk_rate;
> static unsigned int mct_int_type;
>
> @@ -205,11 +206,14 @@ static int exynos4_comp_set_next_event(unsigned long
> cycles,
> static void exynos4_comp_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
> struct clock_event_device *evt)
> {
> + unsigned long cycles_per_jiffy;
> exynos4_mct_comp0_stop();
>
> switch (mode) {
> case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC:
> - exynos4_mct_comp0_start(mode, clk_cnt_per_tick);
> + cycles_per_jiffy =
> + (((unsigned long long) NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ *
> evt->mult) >> evt->shift);
> + exynos4_mct_comp0_start(mode, cycles_per_jiffy);
> break;
>
> case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT:
> @@ -248,9 +252,7 @@ static struct irqaction mct_comp_event_irq = {
>
> static void exynos4_clockevent_init(void)
> {
> - clk_cnt_per_tick = clk_rate / 2 / HZ;
> -
> - clockevents_calc_mult_shift(&mct_comp_device, clk_rate / 2, 5);
> + clockevents_calc_mult_shift(&mct_comp_device, clk_rate, 5);
> mct_comp_device.max_delta_ns =
> clockevent_delta2ns(0xffffffff, &mct_comp_device);
> mct_comp_device.min_delta_ns =
> @@ -316,12 +318,15 @@ static inline void exynos4_tick_set_mode(enum
> clock_event_mode mode,
> struct clock_event_device *evt)
> {
> struct mct_clock_event_device *mevt =
> this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick);
> + unsigned long cycles_per_jiffy;
>
> exynos4_mct_tick_stop(mevt);
>
> switch (mode) {
> case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC:
> - exynos4_mct_tick_start(clk_cnt_per_tick, mevt);
> + cycles_per_jiffy =
> + (((unsigned long long) NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ *
> evt->mult) >> evt->shift);
> + exynos4_mct_tick_start(cycles_per_jiffy, mevt);
> break;
>
> case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT:
> @@ -395,7 +400,7 @@ static void exynos4_mct_tick_init(struct
> clock_event_device *evt)
> evt->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT;
> evt->rating = 450;
>
> - clockevents_calc_mult_shift(evt, clk_rate / 2, 5);
> + clockevents_calc_mult_shift(evt, clk_rate / (TICK_BASE_CNT + 1), 5);
> evt->max_delta_ns =
> clockevent_delta2ns(0x7fffffff, evt);
> evt->min_delta_ns =
> @@ -403,7 +408,7 @@ static void exynos4_mct_tick_init(struct
> clock_event_device *evt)
>
> clockevents_register_device(evt);
>
> - exynos4_mct_write(0x1, mevt->base + MCT_L_TCNTB_OFFSET);
> + exynos4_mct_write(TICK_BASE_CNT, mevt->base + MCT_L_TCNTB_OFFSET);
>
> if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI) {
> if (cpu == 0) {
>
>> On 21/02/2012, Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Maybe, someone missed this.
>> [snip]
>>
>> >
>> > On a side note, with linaro 3.1, when you cat /proc/cpuinfo, we get
>> > incorrect numbers for the BOGOMIPS for the 2 cores (900 and 1900),
>> > whereas on 3.0.4+ kernel, and the insignal kernel, we get the correct
>> > report of 1900 for both cores.
>> >
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
