Subject: [PATCH 2/2] [CPUFREQ] s3c64xx: Add VDDINT voltage scaling

From: [email-masked] (Mark Brown)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:25:06 +0000

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:11:03PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Monday 05 of December 2011 18:57:58 Mark Brown wrote:

> > > (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.

> I'm basing my statements on S3C6410 power design guide and source code of 
> original kernel for Samsung Galaxy GT-i5700 released by Samsung on their 
> open source portal.

So, if you look at the power design guide (or at least the version I
have) that doesn't quite match that - for example, the recommended
operating conditions section quotes 133MHz as 1.2V typical for async
operation and 1.3V typical for sync operation.  There's also some
examples in the power guide showing periods of operation with HCLK at
133MHz and VDDINT at 1.05V.  And driver code showing some variation from
the power design guide :/

> > > 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.

> Well, you are mostly right, but there is one aspect that varies between 
> boards, configuration. Boards can have different PLL settings, run in 
> synchronous or asynchronous mode and might have power regulators of 
> different qualities which will vary in voltage ripple.

The regulators we should be able to take care of through the framework;
it's a moderately common issue on brass board designs due to the
physically larger form factors.  The PLL settings we'd ideally be able
to change at runtime (especially the ARM one which would give us a lot
more flexibility) and at worst should be able to figure out what to do
with based on readback.

> For example, in case of your boards, the regulator is nice and allow 
> reduction of VDDint voltage to minimal value (1.15V), but in general Power 
> Design Guide it is recommended to use the typical value (1.25V).

If it's a question of regulator quality the board should just be adding
an offset in the constraints without the SoC drivers having to worry
their pretty little heads about it.  Like I say it's not an unknown
problem.  Often it's not actually the regulator but rather the board
design that causes the issue, for example if you've got very long traces
from the regulator to the device then you may experience voltage drops
or other effects which impair the accuracy of the supply seen by the
device.

> As far as I know, there are also different revisions of S3C6410, capable of 
> running at different maximal frequencies, at least 667 MHz and 800 MHz 
> versions.

Yes, there are - I've got boards with both variants.  At the minute
we're managing to cope with them by virtue of the different PLL settings
constraining the frequencies we can set, if we ever get control of the
ARM PLL the drivers will need to get a bit smarter.

> > > 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.

> > The clock code should just be adjusted to refuse to set invalid ARM
> > clock ratios.

> This might be some solution as well. I'm not yet sure if it solves all the 
> problems, but I will think about it.

It'd at least stop the system falling over in a big fat heap which seems
like an improvement :)