Mirrors/m1n1
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1 synced 2025-02-16 13:48:29 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

kboot_gpu: Power calc fixes for t6020

Browse source 
Looks like this is different from t6021, and now I wonder if we need to
recheck t6000...

Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@asahilina.net>
This commit is contained in:
Asahi Lina 2023-07-19 18:02:40 +09:00 • committed by Hector Martin
parent dfecc20114
commit f58e213529
1 changed files with 33 additions and 19 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

52
src/kboot_gpu.c
View file

@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
float *afr_leak)
{
float s_sram, k_sram, s_core, k_core, s_cs, k_cs;
float dk_core, dk_sram, dk_cs;
float dk_core, dk_sram = 0, dk_cs;
float imax = 1000;
u32 nclusters = 0;
@ -198,8 +198,8 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
// Since it's obviously wrong, let's just use only the first component
s_core = 1.48461742;
k_core = 0.39013552;
dk_core = 8.558;
dk_sram = 0.05;
dk_core = 1.06975;
dk_sram = 0.00625;
ncores = 8;
adjust_leakages = true;
@ -216,8 +216,8 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
// Since it's obviously wrong, let's just use only the first component
s_core = 1.21356187;
k_core = 0.43328839;
dk_core = 9.83196;
dk_sram = 0.07828;
dk_core = 0.983196;
dk_sram = 0.007828;
simple_exps = true;
ncores = 10;
@ -225,27 +225,41 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
imax = 24.0;
break;
case T6021:
nclusters += 2;
case T6020:
nclusters += 2;
load_fuses(core_leak + 0, min(4, nclusters), 0x29e2cc1f8, 4, 13, 2, 2, false);
load_fuses(sram_leak + 0, min(4, nclusters), 0x29e2cc208, 19, 9, 1, 1, false);
load_fuses(cs_leak + 0, 1, 0x29e2cc204, 8, 12, 1, 1, false);
load_fuses(afr_leak + 0, 1, 0x29e2cc210, 0, 12, 1, 1, false);
nclusters += 4;
s_sram = 5.80760758;
k_sram = 0.00707453862;
// macOS difference: macOS uses a misbehaved piecewise function here
// Since it's obviously wrong, let's just use only the first component
s_core = 1.25194765;
k_core = 0.559222951;
dk_core = 9.50675529;
dk_sram = 0.0753;
s_core = 1.24554153;
k_core = 0.56203084;
s_cs = 1.8593429;
k_cs = 0.1629485;
dk_cs = 4.49158089;
goto t602x;
case T6020:
nclusters = 2;
s_sram = 5.02191218;
k_sram = 0.0145621013;
// macOS difference: macOS uses a misbehaved piecewise function here
// Since it's obviously wrong, let's just use only the first component
s_core = 1.21006932;
k_core = 0.52776378;
s_cs = 1.81949284;
k_cs = 0.1565765;
dk_cs = 1.88830323;
t602x:
dk_core = 1.0007;
dk_sram = 0.007955;
load_fuses(core_leak + 0, min(4, nclusters), 0x29e2cc1f8, 4, 13, 2, 2, false);
load_fuses(sram_leak + 0, min(4, nclusters), 0x29e2cc208, 19, 9, 1, 1, false);
load_fuses(cs_leak + 0, 1, 0x29e2cc204, 8, 12, 1, 1, false);
load_fuses(afr_leak + 0, 1, 0x29e2cc210, 0, 12, 1, 1, false);
simple_exps = true;
ncores = 10;
adjust_leakages = false; // pre-adjusted?
@ -298,7 +312,7 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
sram_v_p = sbase * sbase; // v ^ 2
else
sram_v_p = sbase * sbase * sbase; // v ^ 3
mw += dk_sram * (sram[idx].freq / 1000000.f) * sram_v_p;
mw += dk_sram * core_count[j] * (sram[idx].freq / 1000000.f) * sram_v_p;
float cbase = core[idx].volt / 750.f;
float core_v_p;
@ -306,7 +320,7 @@ static int calc_power_t600x(u32 count, u32 table_count, const struct perf_state
core_v_p = cbase * cbase; // v ^ 2
else
core_v_p = cbase * cbase * cbase; // v ^ 3
mw += dk_core * (core[idx].freq / 1000000.f) * core_v_p;
mw += dk_core * core_count[j] * (core[idx].freq / 1000000.f) * core_v_p;
if (mw > imax * core[idx].volt)
mw = imax * core[idx].volt;