From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: leonard.crestez@nxp.com (Leonard Crestez) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 12:42:23 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx6sx-sdb: Remove cpufreq OPP override In-Reply-To: <51fb1bd0-028d-c431-acc8-3c4f1d25fdba@denx.de> References: <89cc7192100bdc9ce546bf6000446e629457ebc1.1493138693.git.leonard.crestez@nxp.com> <1493141004.3557.8.camel@nxp.com> <20170503135715.GG18578@dragon> <76e22a7e-590f-00ee-04f8-87604303eaad@denx.de> <1493823533.11226.28.camel@nxp.com> <1493834298.11226.40.camel@nxp.com> <51fb1bd0-028d-c431-acc8-3c4f1d25fdba@denx.de> Message-ID: <1493890943.11226.42.camel@nxp.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 21:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 05/03/2017 07:58 PM, Leonard Crestez wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:59 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 05/03/2017 04:58 PM, Leonard Crestez wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 16:26 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > 2) It actually fixes a problem with the voltage rails such that the DVFS > > > > > ? works without leaving the system in unstable or dead state. You do > > > > > ? need the second part of my patch if you drop the OPP hackery, without > > > > > ? it the power framework cannot correctly configure the core voltages, > > > > > ? so the patch from Leonard makes things worse. > > > > No, I think there is a misunderstanding here. The second part of your > > > > patch will cause cpufreq poking at LDOs to indirectly adjust the input > > > > from the PMIC to the minimum required (this is LDO target + > > > > min_dropout_uv). Without it by default VDD_ARM_SOC_IN will remain fixed > > > > as 1375mV from boot. > > > Who sets / guarantees that default value for ARM and SOC rails ? > > I think it's from the PMIC hardware itself (but maybe uboot plays with > > it). VDD_ARM_SOC_IN on this board is tied to SW1AB from MMPF0200: > > > > http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/data-sheets/MMPF0200.pdf > > > > It seems reasonable to rely on such voltages set externally. > Isn't it an established rule that Linux should not depend on bootloader > settings ? Or did that change ? I don't actually know. Is there a hard and fast rule about this, even when it comes to voltages? In theory it is possible for a bootloader to set a low cpu frequency and low voltage and then have the chip fail when the cpufreq driver attempts to go higher. Setting vin-supply on reg_arm/reg_soc would fix that. > Well the regulator(s) cannot be correctly configured if the kernel > doesn't have the correct power distribution described in the DT . It depends on your definition of "correctness". It it certainly possible to get a functional system while only partially describing regulator relationships. I think there is a further misunderstanding here. I have a problem where imx6sx-sdb rev C boards crash on boot with upstream (but are reported to work fine with rev B). Removing the OPP overrides fixes this specific issue. I don't object to the second part of your patch, setting correct supply links is a good thing for various reasons. It is just not necessary for fixing the concrete crash mentioned above (and I tested this). It should probably go in a separate patch. It might seem a pedantic difference but it's good to accurately describe the effect of patches in commit messages. For example it might help somebody looking to backport various fixes. -- Regards, Leonard