Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: Maybe wrong triming parameter

Lukasz Luba
2020-05-07T15:42:52Z

Hi Bernard,

On 5/7/20 12:45 PM, Bernard Zhao wrote:
> In function create_timings_aligned, all the max is to use
> dmc->min_tck->xxx, aligned with val dmc->timings->xxx.
> But the dmc->timings->tFAW use dmc->min_tck->tXP?
> Maybe this point is wrong parameter useing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com>
> ---
> drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
> index 81a1b1d01683..22a43d662833 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
> @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int create_timings_aligned(struct exynos5_dmc *dmc, u32 *reg_timing_row,
> /* power related timings */
> val = dmc->timings->tFAW / clk_period_ps;
> val += dmc->timings->tFAW % clk_period_ps ? 1 : 0;
> - val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tXP);
> + val = max(val, dmc->min_tck->tFAW);
> reg = &timing_power[0];
> *reg_timing_power |= TIMING_VAL2REG(reg, val);
>
>

Good catch! Indeed this should be a dmc->min_tck->tFAW used for
clamping.

It didn't show up in testing because the frequency values based on
which the 'clk_period_ps' are calculated are sane.
Check the dump below:

[ 5.458227] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=6060
[ 5.461743] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=5
[ 5.465273] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=4854
[ 5.470101] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=6
[ 5.473668] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=3636
[ 5.478507] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=7
[ 5.482072] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=2421
[ 5.486951] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=11
[ 5.490531] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1841
[ 5.495439] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=14
[ 5.499113] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1579
[ 5.503877] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=16
[ 5.507476] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1373
[ 5.512368] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=19
[ 5.515968] DMC: mem tFAW=25000, clk_period_ps=1212
[ 5.520826] DMC: tFAW=5, tXP=2 val=21

That's why in the existing configuration it does not harm
(the calculated 'val' is always >= 5) the board.

But I think this patch should be applied (after small changes in the
commit message).

@Krzysztof could you have a look on the commit message or take the
patch with small adjustment in the description, please?

I conditionally give (because of this description):

Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>

Thank you Bernard for reporting and fixing this.

Regards,
Lukasz