Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add GPU OPP voltage ranges to RK356x SoC dtsi

From: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
To: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add GPU OPP voltage ranges to RK356x SoC dtsi
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 13:53:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2794811.2mGxvYehNa@bagend> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1894199.CQOukoFCf9@diego>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2468 bytes --]

On Sunday, 30 June 2024 11:07:47 CEST Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 30. Juni 2024, 00:01:41 CEST schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> > On Saturday, 29 June 2024 18:39:02 CEST Dragan Simic wrote:
> > > Add support for voltage ranges to the GPU OPPs defined in the SoC
> > > dtsi for RK356x.  These voltage ranges are useful for RK356x-based
> > > boards that are designed to use the same power supply for the GPU
> > > and NPU portions of the SoC, which is described further in the
> > > following documents:
> > >   - Rockchip RK3566 Hardware Design Guide, version 1.1.0, page 37
> > >   - Rockchip RK3568 Hardware Design Guide, version 1.2, page 78
> > 
> > That was interesting to read, thanks.
> > Now I understand the difference between rk809(-5) and rk817(-5).
> > 
> > But AFAIUI the above description described why there were separate tables
> > for rk809 and rk817 in v1. But that was dropped in v2. So it seems to me
> > the (commit) message should be updated accordingly?
> > 
> > I also expected that (for v1) there would be a similar construct as was
> > recently added for rk3588. But I should interpret Heiko's comments as that
> > strategy should not be applied to rk356x?
> 
> The issue I had was more about the #ifdef'ery and then having a board define
> a constant to enable one or the other.

Yeah, I had some thoughts about that too, but by the time I was ready to 
respond to that, there was v2, so that became irrelevant.

> As far as I understood the description, the OPP itself is the same in
> terms of frequency and voltage, just the regulator can't fully realize
> that target voltage, so the solution is to allow a voltage range, to
> also support the less-exact regulator.
> 
> On the rk3588 on the other hand the soc variants have different OPP
> tables themselfs, because the soc itself only supports different
> frequencies+voltages. So the solution here is the split of the OPPs so
> that we don't mess around with /delete-node/ edits of one OPP table.
> 
> So TL;DR separate OPP tables are the way to go if the user needs different
> freq+voltage values and voltage ranges allows boards to use less-adapted
> regulators.

Thanks for the explanation.

One of the things I researched was whether there was a different OPP table
in Rockchip's rk3566.dtsi (and then the assumption that RK817 = RK3566 and
RK809 = RK3568, which would be flawed/incorrect). But there wasn't.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]

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