[PATCH 2/2] [CPUFREQ] s3c64xx: Add VDDINT voltage scaling
broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
Mon Dec 5 13:57:58 EST 2011
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 07:45:43PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Please fix your mailer to word wrap at less than 80 columns, I've
reflowed your text for legibility.
> I would oppose here. According to my information, VDDint depends on
> peripheral clock frequencies not ARM frequency and it should be 1.25V
That's quite frankly what my electrical engineering knowledge would
suggest but looking at both the extant drivers implementing this (Google
should turn some up) and the documentation I have that doesn't seem to
be the case. The 1.25V number certainly looks off.
> (min 1.15, max 1.3) for HCLK at 133 MHz and 1.05V (min 0.95, max 1.3)
> for HCLK running at 66 MHz.
I've certainly got documentation that contradicts this, and for some
reason synchronous clocks seem to require a higher VDDINT supply which
baffles me rather.
> Anyway, the behavior will probably vary from board to board, so I would rather
> think about extending s3c64xx-cpufreq driver to allow per board
> frequency/voltage configuration., which would also include settings optimized
> for your boards in their board-specific code.
That seems quite tasteless frankly - the behaviour of the silicon is
not board specific, and we do already have a facility in the regulator
API to compensate for voltage drops in the board if that's an issue.
Anything beyond that is policy and is in the domain of the governors.
The ideal thing would be to be able to scale the HCLK independently of
the ARM clock based on bus loading (taking into account the restrictions
on the relationship between the two clocks) that's very much a long term
goal at this point.
> This would also solve a major problem of current s3c64xx-cpufreq
> implementation, namely crashing boards running in synchronous mode, because of
> odd frequencies specified, like 200 MHz (achievable with PLL set to 800 MHz),
> while the requirement is to keep the ARM frequency a multiple of HCLK when
> running synchronously.
> I have two boards running in synchronous mode (Samsung Galaxy GT-i5700 phone
> and FriendlyARM Tiny6410 board), I might be able to test things related to
> synchronous mode.
The clock code should just be adjusted to refuse to set invalid ARM
More information about the linux-arm-kernel