From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-103.mailbox.org (mout-p-103.mailbox.org [80.241.56.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C87272631; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.161 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776759063; cv=none; b=l5TTtW/KykDkkiJOP9HCs+GQ/RI07nRdeZ3tXO2Q2dC+Xyc2LkA4DWtWEJRRhib5zC3csTmvAZnY3JU3nKCktgqGMnMUYKgZHyHO59Wa56LjmzI0A2Zz9NTDdNKUAPvefzCtQlTa61tTwY//1Eih+1dB2ob1PE/9xpeKDBbreFY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776759063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Tw5y/BjaWKbihGRIOsYkTlgniAaZpFkNRSj8PyADtm8=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=D7JPp7774FhocOYZ4r41LhNKrJH8a20zHEikvEdQZABoRdDBmtZZpkrK6SdiVN3M6EIe14k0EhwKnP3T46xirHjA/OkNUYpEJhVyMnyhdyCmIezOuwzFIwDVkeDjJdb02FDiYG3eNoEdQjg/a0vEC+0j0TAQ0QpmFjKmEqehQ3A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=dHhiLQWX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.161 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="dHhiLQWX" Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-103.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4g0FRJ4rD5z9tMq; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 10:10:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1776759052; 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=Tw5y/BjaWKbihGRIOsYkTlgniAaZpFkNRSj8PyADtm8=; b=dHhiLQWXIWgWFHaJiWrcbUeW05na81V5ClSqTnpiBMdlHHS+ddX5yPOhQN4CUfDvOifOm5 CsSq6HZ64idqIQgd0FbGmyBtHSW0CKc971hEjXK1xMb5zG3S9lqNZ6d1dap736e9vNVEaC fNwf7+pnHoB1wfV0E3XogxIw17WRWOrruixz+kyV4r7PdqziKdFnClKr0BNDgzKlGgtPZQ vVJ0Qw/c1uPhxyYTszZXExAb4cff0lWCwF5/bCI/APZk5t9X+ZrvAEvHzq2jzDXqZzMQYm 6z8Pzd+N8x9ow2AEYLmdlqUFtbWSZX9vYDNtVXk40PeZ2dAq9m4Qh8gr9acWNQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:10:39 +0800 Message-Id: Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Viresh Kumar" , "Rob Herring" , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , "Conor Dooley" , "Paul Walmsley" , "Palmer Dabbelt" , "Albert Ou" , "Alexandre Ghiti" , "Yixun Lan" , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv: dts: spacemit: Add cpu scaling for K1 SoC From: "Shuwei Wu" To: "Aurelien Jarno" , "Anand Moon" References: <20260410-shadow-deps-v2-0-4e16b8c0f60e@mailbox.org> <20260410-shadow-deps-v2-2-4e16b8c0f60e@mailbox.org> In-Reply-To: X-MBO-RS-ID: 898c96528d6322090f5 X-MBO-RS-META: dyrjym6i7ydcwho6k8h6h6sh3yn8yuoe Hi Aurelien, Thanks for your addition. On Tue Apr 21, 2026 at 5:16 AM CST, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi Anand, > > On 2026-04-16 17:07, Anand Moon wrote: >> After reviewing the Banana Pi F3 schematics, I confirmed that Buck1 and = Buck2 >> Both supply the CORE_0V9 with 0.9V=C2=B11% rail. To resolve the restrict= ion errors, >> I expanded the voltage range in the DTS to 500,000=E2=80=93950,000 =C2= =B5V. >>=20 >> Additionally, I updated the DTS to map the second CPU cluster (cores 4= =E2=80=937) >> to Buck2 to better align with the hardware's power distribution. > > Actually the output of Buck1 and Buck2 are connected together, so they=20 > should always be configured with the same output voltage. And both=20 > clusters should be mapped to both outputs. You are right, I received the same response from the official developers. Therefore, I'm wondering if an additional regulator-coupled-with: property definition is also needed here? > > I also wonder why in the original patch the buck1 regulator is named=20 > buck1_3v45, from the schematics, it should rather be called buck1_0v9. Yes, my definition here ignores the regulator's default voltage. Thank you for pointing this out. > > Regards > Aurelien --=20 Best regards, Shuwei Wu