[PATCH v2] ARM: dts: sun8i: add opp-v2 table for A33

[icenowy@aosc.xyz (Icenowy Zheng)]

19.12.2016, 16:54, "Chen-Yu Tsai" <wens@csie.org>:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> ?On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:27:54AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>> ?An operating point table is needed for the cpu frequency adjusting to
>>> ?work.
>>>
>>> ?The operating point table is converted from the common value in
>>> ?extracted script.fex from many A33 board/tablets.
>>>
>>> ?Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.xyz>
>>> ?---
>>> ?Changes since v1:
>>> ?- Fix format problem (blank lines).
>>> ?- Removed the 1.344GHz operating point, as it's overvoltage and overclocked.
>>>
>>> ?This patch depends on the following patchset:
>>>
>>> ?http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-December/473962.html
>>>
>>> ?It's the v2 of the [PATCH 4/6] in this patchset.
>>>
>>> ?I think this operating point table may also apply to A23, as there's no
>>> ?difference except the points over 1.2GHz between A23 and A33's stock dvfs table.
>>>
>>> ?But as A23 CCU may not have the necessary fixes, I won't add the table to A23
>>> ?now.
>>>
>>> ?Chen-Yu, could you test the CCU fixes I described in the patchset above on A23,
>>> ?then test this operating points table?
>>>
>>> ?If it's necessary, you can send out the CCU fixes and add one more patch that
>>> ?moves this opp-v2 table to sun8i-a23-a33.dtsi .
>>>
>>> ??arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> ??1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> ?diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>>> ?index 504996cbee29..0f5b2af72981 100644
>>> ?--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>>> ?+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>>> ?@@ -46,7 +46,42 @@
>>> ??#include <dt-bindings/dma/sun4i-a10.h>
>>>
>>> ??/ {
>>> ?+ cpu0_opp_table: opp_table0 {
>>> ?+ compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>>> ?+ opp-shared;
>>> ?+
>>> ?+ opp at 648000000 {
>>> ?+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <648000000>;
>>> ?+ opp-microvolt = <1040000>;
>>> ?+ clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>>> ?+ };
>>> ?+
>>> ?+ opp at 816000000 {
>>> ?+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <816000000>;
>>> ?+ opp-microvolt = <1100000>;
>>> ?+ clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>>> ?+ };
>>> ?+
>>> ?+ opp at 1008000000 {
>>> ?+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1008000000>;
>>> ?+ opp-microvolt = <1200000>;
>>> ?+ clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>>> ?+ };
>>> ?+
>>> ?+ opp at 1200000000 {
>>> ?+ opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1200000000>;
>>> ?+ opp-microvolt = <1320000>;
>>> ?+ clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>>> ?+ };
>>> ?+ };
>>> ?+
>>> ???????cpus {
>>> ?+ cpu0: cpu at 0 {
>>
>> ?There's no need to duplicate the label here. I removed it and applied.
>
> I think using the label to directly reference cpu0 would be better,
> instead of duplicating the cpu at 0 block.

After proper testing of A23 ccu, the operating points can also apply to A23.
(According to A23 devices' fex)

>
> ChenYu