From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A35C25DAF6; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742809019; cv=none; b=tmV0HSmV5Pw5URcG4PrI8xqGlx+9h6hM1p4OqSZexgff9qx1yKoisNW2ccWYp5xLdcjSFOrTngtr9wOOsxikOUmt44dcGnCrl12FuCb10g2w41pJ6q2lR83DhqY9H3LxOpJV2JRDgl4T6znxHgVR2CPd4AYeUg6X8NEBGyFm7LU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742809019; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tm8nETwBFY8xvceTYwTrlANHRYxXbk/mhl35P+x0Vo0=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=nW2ojUqyZTx6Hrzd8WgQmilCRSsEAjW0qwS3sEwnfP7Ci5Fq+91MuTEyVvMCdDhPVAVt89nxQzFq/wmzNXma5R84k/tIRRpUHJ5rWplo5TdVGY0RqK1YSWp3ChZvueAthBKifms4i8uImzRT2v9JPY8B/8WDwumn1gEVPQYdl0c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=EvPCPcEv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="EvPCPcEv" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1742809015; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kFNrF1+QCqXJYQ2BxaXDZ6u0WsATr1kvUb16OTMEuz4=; b=EvPCPcEvEphlFm4vzCrED3mmJuyz5P3exj1vtXKjA5BDHBcTewltFvy66o4BOPEX8mz0kY rhEnfkbWToQg4L6QoDMvFRXwoTUGWwFn3deRY3BC2HrRqSzWS/u0M8ihvbzaM83vloTDjl +JfonB2rs1O5tFvPmSfj+u9sakL0xAzFBFWbLjeXqS9dnjSCDI1zzr2iBoUBnMiUxsIyYv SH3ITh28J/6HXzUkm3kEbDjz7JXTjKN3ENv4wf/cHFv5ptAyFgvQvDgHa7iYHJrSxCei5s aqFPjayZCyGU+6SsUlQox67BonrIV7Vwoa3eO0ZKvuaO+7aFoJl63rn68lV3Fg== Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 10:36:54 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Quentin Schulz Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Charkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Remove overdrive-mode OPPs from RK3588J SoC dtsi In-Reply-To: <960c038ad9f7b83fe14d0ded388b42f7@manjaro.org> References: <71b7c81b-6a4e-442b-a661-04d63639962a@cherry.de> <960c038ad9f7b83fe14d0ded388b42f7@manjaro.org> Message-ID: <460503eb831485ede9a49dcf226aef1b@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Quentin, On 2025-03-23 11:19, Dragan Simic wrote: > On 2025-03-21 10:53, Quentin Schulz wrote: >> On 3/21/25 4:28 AM, Dragan Simic wrote: >>> The differences in the vendor-approved CPU and GPU OPPs for the >>> standard >>> Rockchip RK3588 variant [1] and the industrial Rockchip RK3588J >>> variant [2] >>> come from the latter, presumably, supporting an extended temperature >>> range >>> that's usually associated with industrial applications, despite the >>> two SoC >>> variant datasheets specifying the same upper limit for the allowed >>> ambient >>> temperature for both variants. However, the lower temperature limit >>> is >> >> RK3588 is rated for 0-80°C, RK3588J for -40-85°C, c.f. Recommended >> Operating Conditions, Table 3-2, Ambient Operating Temperature. > > Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "specifying the same upper > limit", because having a lower negative temperature limit could hardly > put the RK3588J in danger of overheating or running hotter. :) Oh, now I see what you actually wrote above, which I misread a bit initially... In fact, the upper ambient temperature limit is the same for both RK3588J and RK3588, according to the datasheets; it's just that the lower temperature limit is much lower for the RK3588J, which the patch description says. I'm not sure where did you find the 80 vs. 85 oC difference; please, see a couple of screenshots from the datasheets, linked below: - RK3588 datasheet v1.6 (v1.7 is the same): https://0x0.st/8j1a.png - RK3588J datasheet v1.1: https://0x0.st/8j1m.png The v2 of the patch is coming soon, with the patch description improved according to your suggestions.