From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:10:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v8 3/6] ARM: dts: Exynos: add CPU OPP and regulator supply property In-Reply-To: References: <1406611711-25112-1-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1406611711-25112-4-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <53D77817.7030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D78F27.7000606@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 29.07.2014 14:00, Thomas Abraham wrote: [snip] >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi >>> index 492e1ef..876247a 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi >>> @@ -63,6 +63,29 @@ >>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15"; >>> reg = <0>; >>> clock-frequency = <1700000000>; >>> + >>> + clocks = <&clock CLK_ARM_CLK>; >>> + clock-names = "cpu"; >>> + clock-latency = <200000>; >> >> Where does this latency value comes from? How did you calculate it? >> >> For example, on Exynos4210, for all operating points added by your >> patches, the highest PLL locking latency will be 60uS, because the >> highest PDIV value would be 6 and PLL lock time is PDIV*240 ticks of 24 >> MHz reference clock. > > Since the CPU clock is a composite clock with dividers and muxes, the > latency includes the settling time for these clock blocks as well. I > have not made any measurements of the clock transition latency. > It might be more reasonable to find out correct latency values instead of specifying a rather random number. >> >>> + >>> + operating-points = < >>> + 1700000 1300000 >>> + 1600000 1250000 >> >> [snip] >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts >>> index 6052aa9..084e587 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts >>> @@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ >>> bootargs = "console=ttySAC2,115200 init=/linuxrc"; >>> }; >>> >>> + cpus { >> >> Is there no regulator for cpu0? > > This was a mistake. I did not intend to add regulator for cpu4 as well > but somehow I missed it. I will remove it in the next version. > >>> >>> cpu1: cpu at 1 { >>> @@ -69,6 +87,7 @@ >>> reg = <0x1>; >>> clock-frequency = <1800000000>; >>> cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>; >>> + clock-latency = <200000>; >> >> Do you need to specify this property for every CPU or rather just for >> those which have operating points specified? > > The big.little cpufreq driver expects each CPU to have the clock > latency specified. OK, apparently this is the case, even though it seems a bit unreasonable, as they all share the same clock. Best regards, Tomasz