On 22-Jan-26 10:32 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:27 AM Lazar, Lijo <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21-Jan-26 8:44 AM, Yang Wang wrote:
resolve the issue where some freq frequencies cannot be set correctly
due to insufficient floating-point precision.
Signed-off-by: Yang Wang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/inc/smu_v13_0.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/inc/smu_v13_0.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/inc/smu_v13_0.h
index efeaa3d57712..b0d6b7b0946d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/inc/smu_v13_0.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/inc/smu_v13_0.h
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
#define SMUQ10_TO_UINT(x) ((x) >> 10)
#define SMUQ10_FRAC(x) ((x) & 0x3ff)
#define SMUQ10_ROUND(x) ((SMUQ10_TO_UINT(x)) + ((SMUQ10_FRAC(x)) >= 0x200))
+#define SMU_V13_SOFT_FREQ_ROUND(x) ((x) + 1)
extern const int pmfw_decoded_link_speed[5];
extern const int pmfw_decoded_link_width[7];
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0.c
index 51f96fdcec24..e27ea0879429 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0.c
@@ -1554,6 +1554,7 @@ int smu_v13_0_set_soft_freq_limited_range(struct
smu_context *smu,
return clk_id;
if (max > 0) {
+ max = SMU_V13_SOFT_FREQ_ROUND(max);
Looks more like a firmware issue. Isn't firmware supposed to round it to
the closest DPM level frequency?
Arguably yes, but at this point, it's easier to fix in the driver for
existing programs considering all of the firmware out in the wild.
The question then is will just (x + 1) alone get to the right frequency?
Or should the logic be like what firmware is expected to do to find the
nearest dpm frequency?
Thanks,
Lijo
Alex
Thanks,
Lijo
if (automatic)
param = (uint32_t)((clk_id << 16) | 0xffff);
else
@@ -1565,6 +1566,7 @@ int smu_v13_0_set_soft_freq_limited_range(struct
smu_context *smu,
}
if (min > 0) {
+ min = SMU_V13_SOFT_FREQ_ROUND(min);
Does min need this too or just max? Same question on smu14. With
that clarified the patch is:
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <[email protected]>
Alex
if (automatic)
param = (uint32_t)((clk_id << 16) | 0);
else
