All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Igor Paunovic <royalnet026@gmail.com>
To: Huseyin BIYIK <boogiepop@gmx.com>
Cc: Igor Paunovic <royalnet026@gmail.com>,
	Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@ndufresne.ca>,
	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Jiaxing Hu <gahing@gahingwoo.com>,
	Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] accel/rocket: DVFS on RK3588 - a hardware constraint, and some numbers
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 2026 20:51:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903185147.49411-1-royalnet026@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f88072c-6aa3-4294-a35d-722d1c7a405c@email.android.com>

Hi Huseyin,

> if the ccf is really giving locked 1ghz it is most likely reporting
> back what it is set, since scmi is probably returning 0, and ccf is
> ignoring that.

That was worth testing, so I did, this evening: 104 samples at 1 Hz
under sustained MobileNet load, reading in the same instant
CRU_CLKSEL_CON(74) from the kernel and scmi_clk_npu from clk_summary.

  CON74 = 0x00001011, bit0 = 1, in all 104 samples
  scmi_clk_npu = 1000000000, in all 104 samples

With bit0 set, clk_scmi_npu_get_rate() in your commit takes the
PVTPLL branch, which has no fallback: it returns whatever
NPUGRF+0x24 holds, so a zero there would have come back as 0 Hz, not
as 1 GHz. The "return the set rate" path is the GPLL branch, and it
was not taken. So the readback is the counter, not the request.

> If you read the clock in each 1 sec, you should almost always see a
> different value with several hertz of difference.

Agreed, and the register cannot show that: it reports whole MHz.
What I can say is that the NPU value was constant to the MHz over
104 samples, while the GPU on the same BL31 moved between 1047 and
1054. I withdraw the word "locks" from my last mail; "constant to
the MHz" is what was measured, and whether that is a tighter loop or
sub-MHz jitter is beyond this register.

> So it was a theory and probably a weak one.

Fair. What is measured is only this: the same register, read in the
same instant, gives a value from EL3 and zero from EL1. I will stop
calling the cause a firewall until someone knows what it is.

One more correction, to my mail of 18 Aug in this thread: "the 2.58x
I measured here with simple_ondemand against the 200 MHz pin" was a
projection from my harness, not a measurement. Measured today on one
boot, rail at 850 mV, bit-exact oracle in every run:

  userspace @ 200 MHz    89 inf/s   (NPU-side 9.65 ms)
  userspace @ 1000 MHz  222 inf/s   (NPU-side 3.02 ms)
  simple_ondemand       221 inf/s   -> 2.47x, 0.7 % below the pin

The magnitude held; the provenance was wrong, and I am sorry for it.

Enjoy the vacation, there is no hurry on any of this.

Igor

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Igor Paunovic <royalnet026@gmail.com>
To: Huseyin BIYIK <boogiepop@gmx.com>
Cc: Igor Paunovic <royalnet026@gmail.com>,
	Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@ndufresne.ca>,
	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Jiaxing Hu <gahing@gahingwoo.com>,
	Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] accel/rocket: DVFS on RK3588 - a hardware constraint, and some numbers
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 2026 20:51:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903185147.49411-1-royalnet026@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f88072c-6aa3-4294-a35d-722d1c7a405c@email.android.com>

Hi Huseyin,

> if the ccf is really giving locked 1ghz it is most likely reporting
> back what it is set, since scmi is probably returning 0, and ccf is
> ignoring that.

That was worth testing, so I did, this evening: 104 samples at 1 Hz
under sustained MobileNet load, reading in the same instant
CRU_CLKSEL_CON(74) from the kernel and scmi_clk_npu from clk_summary.

  CON74 = 0x00001011, bit0 = 1, in all 104 samples
  scmi_clk_npu = 1000000000, in all 104 samples

With bit0 set, clk_scmi_npu_get_rate() in your commit takes the
PVTPLL branch, which has no fallback: it returns whatever
NPUGRF+0x24 holds, so a zero there would have come back as 0 Hz, not
as 1 GHz. The "return the set rate" path is the GPLL branch, and it
was not taken. So the readback is the counter, not the request.

> If you read the clock in each 1 sec, you should almost always see a
> different value with several hertz of difference.

Agreed, and the register cannot show that: it reports whole MHz.
What I can say is that the NPU value was constant to the MHz over
104 samples, while the GPU on the same BL31 moved between 1047 and
1054. I withdraw the word "locks" from my last mail; "constant to
the MHz" is what was measured, and whether that is a tighter loop or
sub-MHz jitter is beyond this register.

> So it was a theory and probably a weak one.

Fair. What is measured is only this: the same register, read in the
same instant, gives a value from EL3 and zero from EL1. I will stop
calling the cause a firewall until someone knows what it is.

One more correction, to my mail of 18 Aug in this thread: "the 2.58x
I measured here with simple_ondemand against the 200 MHz pin" was a
projection from my harness, not a measurement. Measured today on one
boot, rail at 850 mV, bit-exact oracle in every run:

  userspace @ 200 MHz    89 inf/s   (NPU-side 9.65 ms)
  userspace @ 1000 MHz  222 inf/s   (NPU-side 3.02 ms)
  simple_ondemand       221 inf/s   -> 2.47x, 0.7 % below the pin

The magnitude held; the provenance was wrong, and I am sorry for it.

Enjoy the vacation, there is no hurry on any of this.

Igor

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-03 18:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-01 13:16 [RFC] accel/rocket: DVFS on RK3588 - a hardware constraint, and some numbers Igor Paunovic
2026-08-01 13:16 ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-01 19:32 ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-08-01 19:32   ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-08-02 12:04   ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-02 12:04     ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-15 18:24     ` Tomeu Vizoso
2026-08-15 18:24       ` Tomeu Vizoso
2026-08-17 18:22 ` Nicolas Dufresne
2026-08-17 18:22   ` Nicolas Dufresne
2026-08-18  7:27   ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-18  7:27     ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-18 12:12     ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-18 12:12       ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-18 12:30       ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-18 12:30         ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-19  5:52         ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19  5:52           ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19  9:40           ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-19  9:40             ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-19 12:59             ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19 12:59               ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19 16:20               ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-19 16:20                 ` Jonas Karlman
2026-08-19 18:48                 ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19 18:48                   ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19 20:07                   ` Hüseyin BIYIK
2026-08-19 20:07                     ` Hüseyin BIYIK
2026-09-02 11:04                     ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-02 11:04                       ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-03  9:16                       ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-03  9:16                         ` Igor Paunovic
     [not found]                         ` <2f88072c-6aa3-4294-a35d-722d1c7a405c@email.android.com>
2026-09-03 18:51                           ` Igor Paunovic [this message]
2026-09-03 18:51                             ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-04 11:08                         ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-09-04 11:08                           ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-09-04 12:46                           ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-04 12:46                             ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-05  5:13                             ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-09-05  5:13                               ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-09-05  7:01                               ` Igor Paunovic
2026-09-05  7:01                                 ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-19 18:47             ` Nicolas Dufresne
2026-08-19 18:47               ` Nicolas Dufresne
2026-09-04 11:19   ` Jiaxing Hu
2026-09-04 11:19     ` Jiaxing Hu
     [not found] <DKDOBW9CJ2Y3.10EEIZDTXPYJZ@cknow-tech.com>
2026-08-01 14:40 ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-01 14:40   ` Igor Paunovic
2026-08-01 16:29   ` Diederik de Haas
2026-08-01 16:29     ` Diederik de Haas

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=20260903185147.49411-1-royalnet026@gmail.com \
    --to=royalnet026@gmail.com \
    --cc=boogiepop@gmx.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gahing@gahingwoo.com \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=jonas@kwiboo.se \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=nicolas@ndufresne.ca \
    --cc=ogabbay@kernel.org \
    --cc=tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net \
    /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.