| Message ID | 1426732773-7179-2-git-send-email-wens@csie.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:32 +0800 Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> wrote: > The Olimex A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008MHz. > > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > index 31dc2f1c3870..16ecb8938e19 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > @@ -74,6 +74,20 @@ > status = "okay"; > }; > > +&cpu0 { > + /* The A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008 MHz */ > + operating-points = < > + /* kHz uV */ > + 960000 1400000 > + 912000 1400000 > + 864000 1300000 > + 720000 1200000 > + 528000 1100000 > + 312000 1000000 > + 144000 900000 > + >; > +}; > + > &ehci0 { > status = "okay"; > }; Thanks for the patch. At least it should make my A10-OLinuXino-LIME working without obvious failures out of the box (the U-Boot is still another story though and there is a gap during boot up when the board is running with unreliable settings, but the probability of a failure is rather low). I should also mention that using 960MHz @1.4V does not fail, but it does not have any safety headroom either (the cyan 'sun4i_poorlime' line on the plot): http://people.freedesktop.org/~siamashka/files/20140512/sunxi-cpufreq-plot.png On the other hand, my board is on the worst part of the spectrum (many other a10-lime boards do not fail even at 1008MHz), so maybe having extra safety headroom is less necessary. An interesting question is whether the same problem may be reproducible on the Allwinner A10 devices other than A10-OLinuXino-LIME. My original problem report https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com/msg04343.html mentioned the A10-OLinuXino-LIME rev.A and introduced some sort of a bias by itself. At least I have seen people saying something like "my a10-lime revision is not rev.A, so it's none of my concern and I'm not going to bother running any tests". So far we have accumulated reports from 4 or 5 people having this reliability problem on their A10-OLinuXino-LIME (various revisions, not just rev.A), but not much from the other boards owners. Anyway, this particular patch is Tested-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> Acked-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:32 +0800 > Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> wrote: > >> The Olimex A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008MHz. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts >> index 31dc2f1c3870..16ecb8938e19 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts >> @@ -74,6 +74,20 @@ >> status = "okay"; >> }; >> >> +&cpu0 { >> + /* The A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008 MHz */ >> + operating-points = < >> + /* kHz uV */ >> + 960000 1400000 >> + 912000 1400000 >> + 864000 1300000 >> + 720000 1200000 >> + 528000 1100000 >> + 312000 1000000 >> + 144000 900000 >> + >; >> +}; >> + >> &ehci0 { >> status = "okay"; >> }; > > Thanks for the patch. At least it should make my A10-OLinuXino-LIME > working without obvious failures out of the box (the U-Boot is still > another story though and there is a gap during boot up when the board > is running with unreliable settings, but the probability of a failure > is rather low). > > I should also mention that using 960MHz @1.4V does not fail, but it does > not have any safety headroom either (the cyan 'sun4i_poorlime' line > on the plot): > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~siamashka/files/20140512/sunxi-cpufreq-plot.png > > On the other hand, my board is on the worst part of the spectrum (many > other a10-lime boards do not fail even at 1008MHz), so maybe having > extra safety headroom is less necessary. > > An interesting question is whether the same problem may be reproducible > on the Allwinner A10 devices other than A10-OLinuXino-LIME. My original > problem report > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com/msg04343.html > > mentioned the A10-OLinuXino-LIME rev.A and introduced some sort of > a bias by itself. At least I have seen people saying something like > "my a10-lime revision is not rev.A, so it's none of my concern and > I'm not going to bother running any tests". So far we have accumulated > reports from 4 or 5 people having this reliability problem on their > A10-OLinuXino-LIME (various revisions, not just rev.A), but not > much from the other boards owners. > > Anyway, this particular patch is > Tested-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> Good to hear it works. Did you test all the settings? I copied the wrong settings, from sun5i-a13.dtsi instead of sun4i-a10.dtsi. I'll send a fixed version later. ChenYu
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:17:30 +0800 Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Siarhei Siamashka > <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:39:32 +0800 > > Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> wrote: > > > >> The Olimex A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008MHz. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> > >> --- > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > >> index 31dc2f1c3870..16ecb8938e19 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts > >> @@ -74,6 +74,20 @@ > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > >> > >> +&cpu0 { > >> + /* The A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008 MHz */ > >> + operating-points = < > >> + /* kHz uV */ > >> + 960000 1400000 > >> + 912000 1400000 > >> + 864000 1300000 > >> + 720000 1200000 > >> + 528000 1100000 > >> + 312000 1000000 > >> + 144000 900000 > >> + >; > >> +}; > >> + > >> &ehci0 { > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > > > > Thanks for the patch. At least it should make my A10-OLinuXino-LIME > > working without obvious failures out of the box (the U-Boot is still > > another story though and there is a gap during boot up when the board > > is running with unreliable settings, but the probability of a failure > > is rather low). > > > > I should also mention that using 960MHz @1.4V does not fail, but it does > > not have any safety headroom either (the cyan 'sun4i_poorlime' line > > on the plot): > > > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~siamashka/files/20140512/sunxi-cpufreq-plot.png > > > > On the other hand, my board is on the worst part of the spectrum (many > > other a10-lime boards do not fail even at 1008MHz), so maybe having > > extra safety headroom is less necessary. > > > > An interesting question is whether the same problem may be reproducible > > on the Allwinner A10 devices other than A10-OLinuXino-LIME. My original > > problem report > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com/msg04343.html > > > > mentioned the A10-OLinuXino-LIME rev.A and introduced some sort of > > a bias by itself. At least I have seen people saying something like > > "my a10-lime revision is not rev.A, so it's none of my concern and > > I'm not going to bother running any tests". So far we have accumulated > > reports from 4 or 5 people having this reliability problem on their > > A10-OLinuXino-LIME (various revisions, not just rev.A), but not > > much from the other boards owners. > > > > Anyway, this particular patch is > > Tested-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> > > Acked-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> > > Good to hear it works. Did you test all the settings? You have nailed it. I was about to send the results of the full round of tests after running them a bit longer and revoke the initial Tested-by. Turns out that the 312MHz and 144MHz operating points fail to work reliable and tend to deadlock: Testing CPU 0 960 MHz ............................................................ OK 912 MHz ............................................................ OK 864 MHz ............................................................ OK 720 MHz ............................................................ OK 528 MHz ............................................................ OK 312 MHz ............................................................ OK 144 MHz Write failed: Broken pipe Testing CPU 0 960 MHz ............................................................ OK 912 MHz ............................................................ OK 864 MHz ............................................................ OK 720 MHz ............................................................ OK 528 MHz ............................................................ OK 312 MHz .................Write failed: Broken pipe > I copied the wrong settings, from sun5i-a13.dtsi instead of sun4i-a10.dtsi. I guess, this explains the problems at lower operating points. > I'll send a fixed version later. Thanks.
On 19/03/15 06:57, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > I should also mention that using 960MHz @1.4V does not fail, but it does > not have any safety headroom either (the cyan 'sun4i_poorlime' line > on the plot): > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~siamashka/files/20140512/sunxi-cpufreq-plot.png > > On the other hand, my board is on the worst part of the spectrum (many > other a10-lime boards do not fail even at 1008MHz), so maybe having > extra safety headroom is less necessary. > > An interesting question is whether the same problem may be reproducible > on the Allwinner A10 devices other than A10-OLinuXino-LIME. My original > problem report > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com/msg04343.html > > mentioned the A10-OLinuXino-LIME rev.A and introduced some sort of > a bias by itself. At least I have seen people saying something like > "my a10-lime revision is not rev.A, so it's none of my concern and > I'm not going to bother running any tests". So far we have accumulated > reports from 4 or 5 people having this reliability problem on their > A10-OLinuXino-LIME (various revisions, not just rev.A), but not > much from the other boards owners. I'm somewhat sad to see 1008MHz go. I have 2x revA A10-Lime boards that are stable at 1008MHz with Maximes sunxi/for-next, a full regulator description in the dts and a very recent u-boot. They are not stable at 1056 or above however. Can I ask what the basis is for the 960MHz setting? I don't see any instances of it in any of the a10 fex files, meaning it's likely not very well tested. If there's interest, I'll send the patch adding regulators to the dts for the a10-lime. Rgds, Iain
Hi, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Iain Paton <ipaton0@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/03/15 06:57, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > >> I should also mention that using 960MHz @1.4V does not fail, but it does >> not have any safety headroom either (the cyan 'sun4i_poorlime' line >> on the plot): >> >> http://people.freedesktop.org/~siamashka/files/20140512/sunxi-cpufreq-plot.png >> >> On the other hand, my board is on the worst part of the spectrum (many >> other a10-lime boards do not fail even at 1008MHz), so maybe having >> extra safety headroom is less necessary. >> >> An interesting question is whether the same problem may be reproducible >> on the Allwinner A10 devices other than A10-OLinuXino-LIME. My original >> problem report >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com/msg04343.html >> >> mentioned the A10-OLinuXino-LIME rev.A and introduced some sort of >> a bias by itself. At least I have seen people saying something like >> "my a10-lime revision is not rev.A, so it's none of my concern and >> I'm not going to bother running any tests". So far we have accumulated >> reports from 4 or 5 people having this reliability problem on their >> A10-OLinuXino-LIME (various revisions, not just rev.A), but not >> much from the other boards owners. > > I'm somewhat sad to see 1008MHz go. I have 2x revA A10-Lime boards that > are stable at 1008MHz with Maximes sunxi/for-next, a full regulator > description in the dts and a very recent u-boot. They are not stable at > 1056 or above however. > > > Can I ask what the basis is for the 960MHz setting? I don't see any > instances of it in any of the a10 fex files, meaning it's likely not > very well tested. It was copied from the wrong file. Please see v2 of the series. > If there's interest, I'll send the patch adding regulators to the dts for > the a10-lime. Please do. ChenYu
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts index 31dc2f1c3870..16ecb8938e19 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts @@ -74,6 +74,20 @@ status = "okay"; }; +&cpu0 { + /* The A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008 MHz */ + operating-points = < + /* kHz uV */ + 960000 1400000 + 912000 1400000 + 864000 1300000 + 720000 1200000 + 528000 1100000 + 312000 1000000 + 144000 900000 + >; +}; + &ehci0 { status = "okay"; };
The Olimex A10-Lime is known to be unstable when running at 1008MHz. Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)