From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Remove overdrive-mode OPPs from RK3588J SoC dtsi
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:20:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <170e4d8d-33ca-4c53-9ae7-ca9d674540a9@cherry.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d25c9af4380598b35a0d55e7c77ac3d@manjaro.org>
Hi Dragan,
On 3/24/25 10:53 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Hello Quentin,
>
> On 2025-03-24 10:23, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> On 3/23/25 11:19 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-21 10:53, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/25 4:28 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>>>> The differences in the vendor-approved CPU and GPU OPPs for the
>>>>> standard
>>>>> Rockchip RK3588 variant [1] and the industrial Rockchip RK3588J
>>>>> variant [2]
>>>>> come from the latter, presumably, supporting an extended
>>>>> temperature range
>>>>> that's usually associated with industrial applications, despite the
>>>>> two SoC
>>>>> variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit for the allowed
>>>>> ambient
>>>>> temperature for both variants. However, the lower temperature
>>>>> limit is
>>>>
>>>> RK3588 is rated for 0-80°C, RK3588J for -40-85°C, c.f. Recommended
>>>> Operating Conditions, Table 3-2, Ambient Operating Temperature.
>>>
>>> Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "specifying the same upper
>>> limit", because having a lower negative temperature limit could hardly
>>> put the RK3588J in danger of overheating or running hotter. :)
>>
>> """
>> despite the two SoC variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit
>> for the allowed temperature for both variants
>> """
>>
>> is incorrect. The whole range is different, yes it's only a 5°C
>> difference for the upper limit, but they still are different.
>
> I just commented on this separately, with a couple of datasheet
> screenshots, before I saw your latest response. Please, have
> a look at that message.
>
I see, I had a v1.3 datasheet opened:
https://github.com/FanX-Tek/rk3588-TRM-and-Datasheet/blob/master/Rockchip_RK3588_Datasheet_V1.3-20220328.pdf
Interestingly, it seems the RK3588S (still?) has a smaller operating range:
https://www.armboard.cn/download/Rockchip_RK3588S_Datasheet_V1.6-20240821.pdf
Cheers,
Quentin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Remove overdrive-mode OPPs from RK3588J SoC dtsi
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:20:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <170e4d8d-33ca-4c53-9ae7-ca9d674540a9@cherry.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d25c9af4380598b35a0d55e7c77ac3d@manjaro.org>
Hi Dragan,
On 3/24/25 10:53 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Hello Quentin,
>
> On 2025-03-24 10:23, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> On 3/23/25 11:19 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-21 10:53, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/25 4:28 AM, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>>>> The differences in the vendor-approved CPU and GPU OPPs for the
>>>>> standard
>>>>> Rockchip RK3588 variant [1] and the industrial Rockchip RK3588J
>>>>> variant [2]
>>>>> come from the latter, presumably, supporting an extended
>>>>> temperature range
>>>>> that's usually associated with industrial applications, despite the
>>>>> two SoC
>>>>> variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit for the allowed
>>>>> ambient
>>>>> temperature for both variants. However, the lower temperature
>>>>> limit is
>>>>
>>>> RK3588 is rated for 0-80°C, RK3588J for -40-85°C, c.f. Recommended
>>>> Operating Conditions, Table 3-2, Ambient Operating Temperature.
>>>
>>> Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "specifying the same upper
>>> limit", because having a lower negative temperature limit could hardly
>>> put the RK3588J in danger of overheating or running hotter. :)
>>
>> """
>> despite the two SoC variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit
>> for the allowed temperature for both variants
>> """
>>
>> is incorrect. The whole range is different, yes it's only a 5°C
>> difference for the upper limit, but they still are different.
>
> I just commented on this separately, with a couple of datasheet
> screenshots, before I saw your latest response. Please, have
> a look at that message.
>
I see, I had a v1.3 datasheet opened:
https://github.com/FanX-Tek/rk3588-TRM-and-Datasheet/blob/master/Rockchip_RK3588_Datasheet_V1.3-20220328.pdf
Interestingly, it seems the RK3588S (still?) has a smaller operating range:
https://www.armboard.cn/download/Rockchip_RK3588S_Datasheet_V1.6-20240821.pdf
Cheers,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-24 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-21 3:28 [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Remove overdrive-mode OPPs from RK3588J SoC dtsi Dragan Simic
2025-03-21 3:28 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-21 9:53 ` Quentin Schulz
2025-03-21 9:53 ` Quentin Schulz
2025-03-23 10:19 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-23 10:19 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 9:23 ` Quentin Schulz
2025-03-24 9:23 ` Quentin Schulz
2025-03-24 9:53 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 9:53 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 10:20 ` Quentin Schulz [this message]
2025-03-24 10:20 ` Quentin Schulz
2025-03-24 10:33 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 10:33 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 9:36 ` Dragan Simic
2025-03-24 9:36 ` Dragan Simic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=170e4d8d-33ca-4c53-9ae7-ca9d674540a9@cherry.de \
--to=quentin.schulz@cherry.de \
--cc=alchark@gmail.com \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dsimic@manjaro.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.