From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
On Tegra20 and Tegra30 the HOST1X clock is a fractional clock divider with
7 integer bits + 1 decimal bit. This has been verified on both
documentation and real hardware for Tegra20 an on the documentation I was
able to find for Tegra30.
However in the kernel code this clock is declared as an integer divider. A
consequence of this is that requesting 144 MHz for HOST1X which is fed by
pll_p running at 216 MHz would result in 108 MHz (216 / 2) instead of 144
MHz (216 / 1.5).
Fix by replacing the INT() macro with the MUX() macro which, despite the
name, defines a fractional divider. The only difference between the two
macros is the former does not have the TEGRA_DIVIDER_INT flag.
Also move the line together with the other MUX*() ones to keep the existing
file organization.
Fixes: 76ebc134d45d ("clk: tegra: move periph clocks to common file")
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
index 4dcf7f7cb8a0..806d835ca0d2 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
@@ -615,7 +615,6 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
INT("vde", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_VDE, 61, 0, tegra_clk_vde),
INT("vi", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI, 20, 0, tegra_clk_vi),
INT("epp", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_EPP, 19, 0, tegra_clk_epp),
- INT("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
INT("mpe", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_MPE, 60, 0, tegra_clk_mpe),
INT("2d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_2D, 21, 0, tegra_clk_gr2d),
INT("3d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_3D, 24, 0, tegra_clk_gr3d),
@@ -664,6 +663,7 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
MUX("owr", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_OWR, 71, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_owr_8),
MUX("nor", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_NOR, 42, 0, tegra_clk_nor),
MUX("mipi", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_MIPI, 50, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_mipi),
+ MUX("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor),
MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor_9),
MUX("cilab", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_CILAB, 144, 0, tegra_clk_cilab),
--
2.34.1
On 10/28/22 10:48, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>
> On Tegra20 and Tegra30 the HOST1X clock is a fractional clock divider with
> 7 integer bits + 1 decimal bit. This has been verified on both
> documentation and real hardware for Tegra20 an on the documentation I was
> able to find for Tegra30.
>
> However in the kernel code this clock is declared as an integer divider. A
> consequence of this is that requesting 144 MHz for HOST1X which is fed by
> pll_p running at 216 MHz would result in 108 MHz (216 / 2) instead of 144
> MHz (216 / 1.5).
>
> Fix by replacing the INT() macro with the MUX() macro which, despite the
> name, defines a fractional divider. The only difference between the two
> macros is the former does not have the TEGRA_DIVIDER_INT flag.
>
> Also move the line together with the other MUX*() ones to keep the existing
> file organization.
>
> Fixes: 76ebc134d45d ("clk: tegra: move periph clocks to common file")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> index 4dcf7f7cb8a0..806d835ca0d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> @@ -615,7 +615,6 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> INT("vde", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_VDE, 61, 0, tegra_clk_vde),
> INT("vi", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI, 20, 0, tegra_clk_vi),
> INT("epp", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_EPP, 19, 0, tegra_clk_epp),
> - INT("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> INT("mpe", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_MPE, 60, 0, tegra_clk_mpe),
> INT("2d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_2D, 21, 0, tegra_clk_gr2d),
> INT("3d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_3D, 24, 0, tegra_clk_gr3d),
> @@ -664,6 +663,7 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> MUX("owr", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_OWR, 71, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_owr_8),
> MUX("nor", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_NOR, 42, 0, tegra_clk_nor),
> MUX("mipi", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_MIPI, 50, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_mipi),
> + MUX("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor),
> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor_9),
> MUX("cilab", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_CILAB, 144, 0, tegra_clk_cilab),
This was attempted in the past
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
I assume here you're also porting the downstream patches to upstream.
This one is too questionable. The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall
performance to begin with. It doesn't make sense to use fractional clock
just for getting extra KHz.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Hello Dmitry,
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 03:34:07 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/28/22 10:48, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> >
> > On Tegra20 and Tegra30 the HOST1X clock is a fractional clock divider with
> > 7 integer bits + 1 decimal bit. This has been verified on both
> > documentation and real hardware for Tegra20 an on the documentation I was
> > able to find for Tegra30.
> >
> > However in the kernel code this clock is declared as an integer divider. A
> > consequence of this is that requesting 144 MHz for HOST1X which is fed by
> > pll_p running at 216 MHz would result in 108 MHz (216 / 2) instead of 144
> > MHz (216 / 1.5).
> >
> > Fix by replacing the INT() macro with the MUX() macro which, despite the
> > name, defines a fractional divider. The only difference between the two
> > macros is the former does not have the TEGRA_DIVIDER_INT flag.
> >
> > Also move the line together with the other MUX*() ones to keep the existing
> > file organization.
> >
> > Fixes: 76ebc134d45d ("clk: tegra: move periph clocks to common file")
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> > index 4dcf7f7cb8a0..806d835ca0d2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> > @@ -615,7 +615,6 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> > INT("vde", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_VDE, 61, 0, tegra_clk_vde),
> > INT("vi", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI, 20, 0, tegra_clk_vi),
> > INT("epp", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_EPP, 19, 0, tegra_clk_epp),
> > - INT("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> > INT("mpe", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_MPE, 60, 0, tegra_clk_mpe),
> > INT("2d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_2D, 21, 0, tegra_clk_gr2d),
> > INT("3d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_3D, 24, 0, tegra_clk_gr3d),
> > @@ -664,6 +663,7 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> > MUX("owr", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_OWR, 71, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_owr_8),
> > MUX("nor", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_NOR, 42, 0, tegra_clk_nor),
> > MUX("mipi", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_MIPI, 50, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_mipi),
> > + MUX("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> > MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor),
> > MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor_9),
> > MUX("cilab", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_CILAB, 144, 0, tegra_clk_cilab),
>
> This was attempted in the past
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> I assume here you're also porting the downstream patches to upstream.
> This one is too questionable. The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall
> performance to begin with. It doesn't make sense to use fractional clock
> just for getting extra KHz.
Thank you for the review and for the pointer!
Indeed I'm not sure this patch brings an actual improvement to my use
case, however I reached it by trying to replicate the configuration on
a known-working kernel 3.1, which uses a 1.5 divider. This seems to be
the same reason that led to the 2018 patch that also got rejected.
I'll be OK with dropping this patch after I have a 100% working setup
with an integer divider, which is very likely given your reply. But it
took time before I found the root cause of this issue, and I would like
to avoid other people waste time in the future, so what about adding a
comment there?
What about:
/*
* The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall performance. It doesn't
* make sense to use fractional clock just for getting extra KHz, so
* let's pretend it's an integer divider
*/
?
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
On 11/2/22 11:32, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 03:34:07 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/22 10:48, [email protected] wrote:
>>> From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> On Tegra20 and Tegra30 the HOST1X clock is a fractional clock divider with
>>> 7 integer bits + 1 decimal bit. This has been verified on both
>>> documentation and real hardware for Tegra20 an on the documentation I was
>>> able to find for Tegra30.
>>>
>>> However in the kernel code this clock is declared as an integer divider. A
>>> consequence of this is that requesting 144 MHz for HOST1X which is fed by
>>> pll_p running at 216 MHz would result in 108 MHz (216 / 2) instead of 144
>>> MHz (216 / 1.5).
>>>
>>> Fix by replacing the INT() macro with the MUX() macro which, despite the
>>> name, defines a fractional divider. The only difference between the two
>>> macros is the former does not have the TEGRA_DIVIDER_INT flag.
>>>
>>> Also move the line together with the other MUX*() ones to keep the existing
>>> file organization.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 76ebc134d45d ("clk: tegra: move periph clocks to common file")
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
>>> index 4dcf7f7cb8a0..806d835ca0d2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
>>> @@ -615,7 +615,6 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
>>> INT("vde", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_VDE, 61, 0, tegra_clk_vde),
>>> INT("vi", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI, 20, 0, tegra_clk_vi),
>>> INT("epp", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_EPP, 19, 0, tegra_clk_epp),
>>> - INT("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
>>> INT("mpe", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_MPE, 60, 0, tegra_clk_mpe),
>>> INT("2d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_2D, 21, 0, tegra_clk_gr2d),
>>> INT("3d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_3D, 24, 0, tegra_clk_gr3d),
>>> @@ -664,6 +663,7 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
>>> MUX("owr", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_OWR, 71, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_owr_8),
>>> MUX("nor", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_NOR, 42, 0, tegra_clk_nor),
>>> MUX("mipi", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_MIPI, 50, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_mipi),
>>> + MUX("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
>>> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor),
>>> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor_9),
>>> MUX("cilab", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_CILAB, 144, 0, tegra_clk_cilab),
>>
>> This was attempted in the past
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>
>> I assume here you're also porting the downstream patches to upstream.
>> This one is too questionable. The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall
>> performance to begin with. It doesn't make sense to use fractional clock
>> just for getting extra KHz.
>
> Thank you for the review and for the pointer!
>
> Indeed I'm not sure this patch brings an actual improvement to my use
> case, however I reached it by trying to replicate the configuration on
> a known-working kernel 3.1, which uses a 1.5 divider. This seems to be
> the same reason that led to the 2018 patch that also got rejected.
>
> I'll be OK with dropping this patch after I have a 100% working setup
> with an integer divider, which is very likely given your reply. But it
> took time before I found the root cause of this issue, and I would like
> to avoid other people waste time in the future, so what about adding a
> comment there?
>
> What about:
>
> /*
> * The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall performance. It doesn't
> * make sense to use fractional clock just for getting extra KHz, so
> * let's pretend it's an integer divider
> */
If host1x isn't the only clock like that, then comment shouldn't be
directed to host1x. Have you checked other clocks?
I'm curious who made that change originally in your downstream, was it
coming from NVIDIA?
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Hi Dmitry,
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:44:16 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/2/22 11:32, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > Hello Dmitry,
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 03:34:07 +0300
> > Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/28/22 10:48, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> On Tegra20 and Tegra30 the HOST1X clock is a fractional clock divider with
> >>> 7 integer bits + 1 decimal bit. This has been verified on both
> >>> documentation and real hardware for Tegra20 an on the documentation I was
> >>> able to find for Tegra30.
> >>>
> >>> However in the kernel code this clock is declared as an integer divider. A
> >>> consequence of this is that requesting 144 MHz for HOST1X which is fed by
> >>> pll_p running at 216 MHz would result in 108 MHz (216 / 2) instead of 144
> >>> MHz (216 / 1.5).
> >>>
> >>> Fix by replacing the INT() macro with the MUX() macro which, despite the
> >>> name, defines a fractional divider. The only difference between the two
> >>> macros is the former does not have the TEGRA_DIVIDER_INT flag.
> >>>
> >>> Also move the line together with the other MUX*() ones to keep the existing
> >>> file organization.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 76ebc134d45d ("clk: tegra: move periph clocks to common file")
> >>> Cc: [email protected]
> >>> Cc: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> >>> index 4dcf7f7cb8a0..806d835ca0d2 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra-periph.c
> >>> @@ -615,7 +615,6 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> >>> INT("vde", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_VDE, 61, 0, tegra_clk_vde),
> >>> INT("vi", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI, 20, 0, tegra_clk_vi),
> >>> INT("epp", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_EPP, 19, 0, tegra_clk_epp),
> >>> - INT("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> >>> INT("mpe", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_MPE, 60, 0, tegra_clk_mpe),
> >>> INT("2d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_2D, 21, 0, tegra_clk_gr2d),
> >>> INT("3d", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_3D, 24, 0, tegra_clk_gr3d),
> >>> @@ -664,6 +663,7 @@ static struct tegra_periph_init_data periph_clks[] = {
> >>> MUX("owr", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_OWR, 71, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_owr_8),
> >>> MUX("nor", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_NOR, 42, 0, tegra_clk_nor),
> >>> MUX("mipi", mux_pllp_pllc_pllm_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_MIPI, 50, TEGRA_PERIPH_ON_APB, tegra_clk_mipi),
> >>> + MUX("host1x", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_HOST1X, 28, 0, tegra_clk_host1x),
> >>> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllm_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor),
> >>> MUX("vi_sensor", mux_pllc_pllp_plla, CLK_SOURCE_VI_SENSOR, 20, TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, tegra_clk_vi_sensor_9),
> >>> MUX("cilab", mux_pllp_pllc_clkm, CLK_SOURCE_CILAB, 144, 0, tegra_clk_cilab),
> >>
> >> This was attempted in the past
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >>
> >> I assume here you're also porting the downstream patches to upstream.
> >> This one is too questionable. The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall
> >> performance to begin with. It doesn't make sense to use fractional clock
> >> just for getting extra KHz.
> >
> > Thank you for the review and for the pointer!
> >
> > Indeed I'm not sure this patch brings an actual improvement to my use
> > case, however I reached it by trying to replicate the configuration on
> > a known-working kernel 3.1, which uses a 1.5 divider. This seems to be
> > the same reason that led to the 2018 patch that also got rejected.
> >
> > I'll be OK with dropping this patch after I have a 100% working setup
> > with an integer divider, which is very likely given your reply. But it
> > took time before I found the root cause of this issue, and I would like
> > to avoid other people waste time in the future, so what about adding a
> > comment there?
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > /*
> > * The host1x clock shouldn't affect overall performance. It doesn't
> > * make sense to use fractional clock just for getting extra KHz, so
> > * let's pretend it's an integer divider
> > */
>
> If host1x isn't the only clock like that, then comment shouldn't be
> directed to host1x. Have you checked other clocks?
No, apologies, I don't know enough about this SoC to be able to put
into a comment anything interesting other than what you wrote in your
previous reply.
> I'm curious who made that change originally in your downstream, was it
> coming from NVIDIA?
It is coming from our customer, not sure where they got it initially,
but this is the commit where it was added, with a DIV_U71 flag:
https://osdn.net/projects/android-x86/scm/git/kernel/commits/d861196163e30c07add471562b45dce38517c9b2
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com