On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:42:46PM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Bernard, > > > On 5/7/20 12:45 PM, Bernard Zhao wrote: > > In function create_timings_aligned, all the max is to use > > dmc->min_tck->xxx, aligned with val dmc->timings->xxx. > > But the dmc->timings->tFAW use dmc->min_tck->tXP? > > Maybe this point is wrong parameter useing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > index 81a1b1d01683..22a43d662833 100644 > > --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c > > @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int create_timings_aligned(struct exynos5_dmc *dmc, u32 *reg_timing_row, > > /* power related timings */ > > val = dmc->timings->tFAW / clk_period_ps; > > val += dmc->timings->tFAW % clk_period_ps ? 1 : 0; > > - val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tXP); > > + val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tFAW); > > reg = &timing_power[0]; > > *reg_timing_power |= TIMING_VAL2REG(reg, val); > > > > Good catch! Indeed this should be a dmc->min_tck->tFAW used for > clamping. > > It didn't show up in testing because the frequency values based on > which the 'clk_period_ps' are calculated are sane. > Check the dump below: > > [ 5.458227] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=6060 > [ 5.461743] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=5 > [ 5.465273] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=4854 > [ 5.470101] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=6 > [ 5.473668] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=3636 > [ 5.478507] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=7 > [ 5.482072] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=2421 > [ 5.486951] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=11 > [ 5.490531] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1841 > [ 5.495439] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=14 > [ 5.499113] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1579 > [ 5.503877] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=16 > [ 5.507476] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1373 > [ 5.512368] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=19 > [ 5.515968] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1212 > [ 5.520826] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=21 > > That's why in the existing configuration it does not harm > (the calculated 'val' is always >= 5) the board. > > But I think this patch should be applied (after small changes in the > commit message). > > @Krzysztof could you have a look on the commit message or take the > patch with small adjustment in the description, please? > > I conditionally give (because of this description): > > Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> Thanks for review. I applied patch with CC-stable and adjusred commit msg. Best regards, Krzysztof
