[PATCH v2] ARM: dts: sun8i: add opp-v2 table for A33

[Chen-Yu Tsai]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:27:54AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> An operating point table is needed for the cpu frequency adjusting to
>> work.
>>
>> The operating point table is converted from the common value in
>> extracted script.fex from many A33 board/tablets.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy at aosc.xyz>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Fix format problem (blank lines).
>> - Removed the 1.344GHz operating point, as it's overvoltage and overclocked.
>>
>> This patch depends on the following patchset:
>>
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-December/473962.html
>>
>> It's the v2 of the [PATCH 4/6] in this patchset.
>>
>> I think this operating point table may also apply to A23, as there's no
>> difference except the points over 1.2GHz between A23 and A33's stock dvfs table.
>>
>> But as A23 CCU may not have the necessary fixes, I won't add the table to A23
>> now.
>>
>> Chen-Yu, could you test the CCU fixes I described in the patchset above on A23,
>> then test this operating points table?
>>
>> If it's necessary, you can send out the CCU fixes and add one more patch that
>> moves this opp-v2 table to sun8i-a23-a33.dtsi .
>>
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>> index 504996cbee29..0f5b2af72981 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi
>> @@ -46,7 +46,42 @@
>>  #include <dt-bindings/dma/sun4i-a10.h>
>>
>>  / {
>> +     cpu0_opp_table: opp_table0 {
>> +             compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> +             opp-shared;
>> +
>> +             opp at 648000000 {
>> +                     opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <648000000>;
>> +                     opp-microvolt = <1040000>;
>> +                     clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>> +             };
>> +
>> +             opp at 816000000 {
>> +                     opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <816000000>;
>> +                     opp-microvolt = <1100000>;
>> +                     clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>> +             };
>> +
>> +             opp at 1008000000 {
>> +                     opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1008000000>;
>> +                     opp-microvolt = <1200000>;
>> +                     clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>> +             };
>> +
>> +             opp at 1200000000 {
>> +                     opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1200000000>;
>> +                     opp-microvolt = <1320000>;
>> +                     clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */
>> +             };
>> +     };
>> +
>>       cpus {
>> +             cpu0: cpu at 0 {
>
> There's no need to duplicate the label here. I removed it and applied.

I think using the label to directly reference cpu0 would be better,
instead of duplicating the cpu at 0 block.

ChenYu