Hi Kukjin, Thanks for the patch.
With this, the BogoMIPS value for both cores is the same (1992) (tested on Origen board). Regards, Sachin On 22/02/2012, Kukjin Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > Sachin Kamat wrote: >> >> Hi, >> > Hi, > >> The mismatch in BogoMIPS value between two cores (992 and 1992) is not >> specific to Origen board. >> The same is observed on SMDKV310 board as well. It looks like a common >> Exynos machine problem. >> >> Including the mailing list for wider dissemination. >> >> > I think, you can get the right value of BogoMIPS with following. > If any problems, please let me know. > > As a note, let me send following patch after done of sorting for other > exynos5250 arch patches. > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > Kgene. > -- > Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>, Senior Engineer, > SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > From: Changhwan Youn <[email protected]> > ARM: EXYNOS: fix cycle count for periodic mode of clock event timers > > EXYNOS SOC series use MCT for kernel timer and MCT has two types of > clock event timers, which are mct-comp and mct-tick. > Because the clock rate of each event timer is diffent from the other, > this patch fixes cycles_per_jiffy for each timer's periodic mode. > > Signed-off-by: Changhwan Youn <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]> > --- > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c > index 667a8e9..2ded1ff 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mct.c > @@ -29,12 +29,13 @@ > #include <mach/regs-mct.h> > #include <asm/mach/time.h> > > +#define TICK_BASE_CNT 1 > + > enum { > MCT_INT_SPI, > MCT_INT_PPI > }; > > -static unsigned long clk_cnt_per_tick; > static unsigned long clk_rate; > static unsigned int mct_int_type; > > @@ -205,11 +206,14 @@ static int exynos4_comp_set_next_event(unsigned long > cycles, > static void exynos4_comp_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode, > struct clock_event_device *evt) > { > + unsigned long cycles_per_jiffy; > exynos4_mct_comp0_stop(); > > switch (mode) { > case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC: > - exynos4_mct_comp0_start(mode, clk_cnt_per_tick); > + cycles_per_jiffy = > + (((unsigned long long) NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ * > evt->mult) >> evt->shift); > + exynos4_mct_comp0_start(mode, cycles_per_jiffy); > break; > > case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT: > @@ -248,9 +252,7 @@ static struct irqaction mct_comp_event_irq = { > > static void exynos4_clockevent_init(void) > { > - clk_cnt_per_tick = clk_rate / 2 / HZ; > - > - clockevents_calc_mult_shift(&mct_comp_device, clk_rate / 2, 5); > + clockevents_calc_mult_shift(&mct_comp_device, clk_rate, 5); > mct_comp_device.max_delta_ns = > clockevent_delta2ns(0xffffffff, &mct_comp_device); > mct_comp_device.min_delta_ns = > @@ -316,12 +318,15 @@ static inline void exynos4_tick_set_mode(enum > clock_event_mode mode, > struct clock_event_device *evt) > { > struct mct_clock_event_device *mevt = > this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick); > + unsigned long cycles_per_jiffy; > > exynos4_mct_tick_stop(mevt); > > switch (mode) { > case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC: > - exynos4_mct_tick_start(clk_cnt_per_tick, mevt); > + cycles_per_jiffy = > + (((unsigned long long) NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ * > evt->mult) >> evt->shift); > + exynos4_mct_tick_start(cycles_per_jiffy, mevt); > break; > > case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT: > @@ -395,7 +400,7 @@ static void exynos4_mct_tick_init(struct > clock_event_device *evt) > evt->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT; > evt->rating = 450; > > - clockevents_calc_mult_shift(evt, clk_rate / 2, 5); > + clockevents_calc_mult_shift(evt, clk_rate / (TICK_BASE_CNT + 1), 5); > evt->max_delta_ns = > clockevent_delta2ns(0x7fffffff, evt); > evt->min_delta_ns = > @@ -403,7 +408,7 @@ static void exynos4_mct_tick_init(struct > clock_event_device *evt) > > clockevents_register_device(evt); > > - exynos4_mct_write(0x1, mevt->base + MCT_L_TCNTB_OFFSET); > + exynos4_mct_write(TICK_BASE_CNT, mevt->base + MCT_L_TCNTB_OFFSET); > > if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI) { > if (cpu == 0) { > >> On 21/02/2012, Sangwook Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Maybe, someone missed this. >> [snip] >> >> > >> > On a side note, with linaro 3.1, when you cat /proc/cpuinfo, we get >> > incorrect numbers for the BOGOMIPS for the 2 cores (900 and 1900), >> > whereas on 3.0.4+ kernel, and the insignal kernel, we get the correct >> > report of 1900 for both cores. >> > >> >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
