Related
Hi,
I did release an OC/UV kernel for the Optimus 2x device, which come with an application ( Pimp My Cpu ) to manage/change the frequency/voltage on the fly. I had a lot of questions about adding this capability to other devices/kernels, so i tought i could write some little explanation on how it work. This could also be a way to have a common way to add OC/UV so developpers can easly work for any oc/uv kernel (by respecting the two added sysfs interfaces names/capability).
First, we will assume that you sucessfully added overclocking capability to your kernel. So now to be able to "talk" with your kernel and change the frequency/voltage on the fly, we need to use cpufreq capability.
Some of the required "sysfs" interfaces are already provided by cpufreq on all (i guess) kernel. Here is a list of used cpufreq interfaces that should already be present in any default kernel :
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_max_freq" :
This interface will show the maximum cpu frequency available on your device. This interface is read only, and you won't be able, in any case, to set an higher cpu frequency than this one. The Optimus 2X for example report "1000000" Khz (1Ghz) by default, after hacking the kernel to enable a higher frequency it can report "1200000" (1.2Ghz).
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_min_freq" :
This interface will show the minimum cpu frequency available on your device. This interface is read only, and you won't be able, in any case, to set an lower cpu frequency than this one.
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq" :
This interface will show/set the maxmimum possible cpu frequency.
If you read this interface ( "cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq" ) it will return the current maxmimum possible cpu frequency.
You can write a new maximum frequency to this interface (anything higher reported by "cpuinfo_max_freq" will not work) so you cpu will never go higher.
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq" :
This interface will show/set the minimum possible cpu frequency.
If you read this interface ( "cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq" ) it will return the current minimum possible cpu frequency.
You can write a new minimum frequency to this interface (anything lower reported by "cpuinfo_min_freq" will not work) so you cpu will never go lower.
That's it for the standard cpufreq interfaces. Now if you want to be able to change this values "on the fly", with "Pimp My Cpu" for example, you'll have to add two new interfaces to cpufreq :
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/frequency_voltage_table" :
This interface will return a table of all the availabe cpu frequency and voltages for each steps, higher to lower and is read only. This allow some utility like "Pimp My Cpu" to know each possible available frequency/voltage your kernel have.
You'll have to hack your kernel around to store this table and be able to show it a new cpufreq sysfs interface. You can take a look at my github to see how i did achieve that.
An read of this interface on the Optimus 2x will report :
FREQ STOCK_MV CURRENT_MV
Code:
1200000 1100 1100
1000000 1000 1000
900000 950 950
750000 875 875
650000 850 850
500000 800 800
300000 770 770
216000 770 770
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/UV_mV_table" :
This interface enable on the fly voltage change (in mV). You can read/write to it. It will report the current millivolts modifier ( this means : "STOCK_MV" - "UV_mV_table value" ) from higher frequency to lower.
Of course, you'll have to find where the voltage change occur in your kernel and substract this value from the original value. You'll find how i did that on the Optimus 2x kernel on my github.
If you want to undervolt the 1000000 Khz (1Ghz) frequency by 50mV (based on the previous "frequency_voltage_table" you would do it like this :
Code:
echo "0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/UV_mV_table
That's all for now, i'll try to add some more details as possible.
Good FAQ...thankyou!
Ummmm .... okay... but how can i add more frequencies to the Kernel.... ??? is there any specific file i have to edit or a few files i have to add to the source and then directly compile or some other way ?
hello guys so i was looking at this project for Motorola Droid X:
http://code.google.com/p/milestone-overclock/
since Droid X has similar OMAP3630 chipset i thought we could try it out for this device...
if it has already been tried out by u guys then sorry for dupe post
anyways the sources available (milestone-overclock-module-1.4.8.tar.gz) were not directly compatible with the i9003 kernel sources (GB_CHN_UPDATE1) so i have modified it slightly.... and now the module gets compiled and it gets loaded (by insmod)... the sysfs and proc interface is active... even the app (MilestoneOverclock148.apk) detects the module correctly... but the changes dont work...
i invite all devs to help out with this...
modified sources are posted here:
https://github.com/DooMLoRD/i9003-overclock
noobs kindly dont spam this thread....
P.S.: Droid X has got overclock upto 1.4GHz with help of this so i am sure we can try little more overclock than 1.1GHz
If you look at the Samsung code in arch/arm/mach-omap2 and /plat-omap, and compare it with code seen for example in the nook color sources (OMAP 3630, see here), there are HUGE differences.
Normally the opp frequency table seems to be hard coded and easy to edit. Samsung on the other hand decided to dynamically assemble it in board-latona.c with info from cpufreq34xx.c (if I overlook that correctly). These differences could be the reason the module does not work.
Further, the line Amit and you changed in clock.c could - but I am not quite sure - actually lead to 10% higher clocks on every opp step. Because what you changed
Code:
- mpurate *= 1000000;
+ mpurate *= 1100000;
is a conversion factor from MHz to Hz. The line
Code:
if (mpurate < 1000)
above seems to be a logical check if the desired clock has been given in Hz or MHz, which is expected to be at max 800 for the 3630. For our 3640 the highest frequency is 1000, which would require the check to be
Code:
if (mpurate < 1001)
or similar, but they might have overlooked this change. If the input is below this boundary, it is thought to be in MHz, and is converted to match the internal logic which works with Hz only.
And two more questions: I experimented a lot with the OC code, and even added two new opps (1100/840 and 1200/865) to my tables. I could select them, and everything including cpufreq scaling tables was correct, but the CPU never was actually clocked above 1000MHz. Do you know why? And did you check if it is with your kernel (compare benchmark values, do not trust any other source, they all lie )?
previously i was also having milestone A853 and by the overclock module it can be overclocked to 1.2 ghz
XDA_Bam said:
If you look at the Samsung code in arch/arm/mach-omap2 and /plat-omap, and compare it with code seen for example in the nook color sources (OMAP 3630, see here), there are HUGE differences.
Normally the opp frequency table seems to be hard coded and easy to edit. Samsung on the other hand decided to dynamically assemble it in board-latona.c with info from cpufreq34xx.c (if I overlook that correctly). These differences could be the reason the module does not work.
Further, the line Amit and you changed in clock.c could - but I am not quite sure - actually lead to 10% higher clocks on every opp step. Because what you changed
Code:
- mpurate *= 1000000;
+ mpurate *= 1100000;
is a conversion factor from MHz to Hz. The line
Code:
if (mpurate < 1000)
above seems to be a logical check if the desired clock has been given in Hz or MHz, which is expected to be at max 800 for the 3630. For our 3640 the highest frequency is 1000, which would require the check to be
Code:
if (mpurate < 1001)
or similar, but they might have overlooked this change. If the input is below this boundary, it is thought to be in MHz, and is converted to match the internal logic which works with Hz only.
And two more questions: I experimented a lot with the OC code, and even added two new opps (1100/840 and 1200/865) to my tables. I could select them, and everything including cpufreq scaling tables was correct, but the CPU never was actually clocked above 1000MHz. Do you know why? And did you check if it is with your kernel (compare benchmark values, do not trust any other source, they all lie )?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I know the changes in diff omap kernel sources... Spent a few hrs today comparing milestone/droid x and i9003 kernel sources to get this module complied and loading...
I am sure that the change done by amit is correct, because there is a very prominent change in linpack scores ~18 compared to ~16 which is typical of a 10% overclock...
As for ur other two questions I posted this earlier in the other thread
DooMLoRD said:
Not sure... These omap chips seem to have only 4 bins (300/600/800/1000)... We are currently making the 1000 MHz bin run at 1100mhz... I am not sure if we can add extra bins... I tried adding a lower 125MHz bin, it was shown by setcpu but the device never really went below 300mhz... May be we need to investigate it further...
Sent from my R800i using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
P.S.: the chip on this phone is OMAP3630
Sent from my R800i using XDA App
DooMLoRD said:
I am sure that the change done by amit is correct, because there is a very prominent change in linpack scores ~18 compared to ~16 which is typical of a 10% overclock...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, so the overclock is working. Nice Concerning the mpurate, have a look here. The author is working at TI, so I expect him to be familiar with the code. However, that does not mean we can't use the conversion factor for overclock. It's just not "clean".
DooMLoRD said:
P.S.: the chip on this phone is OMAP3630
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, you're right. Got that wrong
---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------
And another idea: For the Nook Color, there is a guy who implemented an interface and an app to change the clocks. It is different from droid-overclock, because he implemented a sysfs interface in the kernel sources. Hope this helps.
http://code.google.com/p/milestone-overclock/
sorry its of no use as yr already checked it out
XDA_Bam said:
And another idea: For the Nook Color, there is a guy who implemented an interface and an app to change the clocks. It is different from droid-overclock, because he implemented a sysfs interface in the kernel sources. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That looks very much like the sysfs interface we added for VDD control on QSD8250/MSM7X30... Should work I think...
Sent from my R800i using XDA App
akashsgpgi said:
http://code.google.com/p/milestone-overclock/
sorry its of no use as yr already checked it out
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U should be BANNED for spamming.... The link u posted is already there in the second line of the main post...
READ!!!!
Sent from my R800i using XDA App
I made progress with the sysfs interface seen on the Nook. Kernel boots, and the correct rates are displayed under /sys/power/mpu_freq_oppX. I was also able to set the hightest opp to 800 MHz, so that the two highest were both at the same frequency. The setting worked (confirmed with Linpack). But 1100 MHz was ignored (stayed at 1000). Looking into this further.
XDA_Bam said:
I made progress with the sysfs interface seen on the Nook. Kernel boots, and the correct rates are displayed under /sys/power/mpu_freq_oppX. I was also able to set the hightest opp to 800 MHz, so that the two highest were both at the same frequency. The setting worked (confirmed with Linpack). But 1100 MHz was ignored (stayed at 1000). Looking into this further.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so wht cpu freq table are u using exactly?
wht i think is we should concentrate on this (atleast for now):
just keep the 4 bins as is (300, 600, 800, 1000)
then try n get the access to these via sysfs (or proc)
see if we can modify them via that interface, say change 1000 to 1100 or change 800 to 900
and then do tests if these work...
if possible make a sysfs (or proc) interface for VDD (voltage control) too...
have u pushed the testing changes... i am working on same thing here... might help to speed things up...
I am currently testing on the master branch, so the branch is "wrong", but this is the commit:
Sysfs interface
Because only underclock works as of now, I am tested setting
Code:
if (mpurate < 2000)
but that didn't help. Now I will define 1100 and 1200 MHz steps in board-latona.c and cpufreq34xx.c to see if this helps.
EDIT: Nope, that didn't solve it. CPU does not run at 1100. Not even 900. Stays at 1000 in both cases. 800 can be forced...
some updates on the overclock module:
we need to search in /proc/kallsyms for:
clk_init_cpufreq_table
cpufreq_stats_update
on our kernel (uc-kernel v04) they are at:
Code:
c005a198 T clk_init_cpufreq_table
c03c5aec t cpufreq_stats_update
these may be different on stock kernel we need to use specific address
I just thought this might be helpful since Optimus black has the same hardware.
joelmonty said:
I just thought this might be helpful since Optimus black has the same hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its the same module dude...
these are all based on milestone-overclock module
DooMLoRD said:
some updates on the overclock module:
we need to search in /proc/kallsyms for:
clk_init_cpufreq_table
cpufreq_stats_update
on our kernel (uc-kernel v04) they are at:
Code:
c005a198 T clk_init_cpufreq_table
c03c5aec t cpufreq_stats_update
these may be different on stock kernel we need to use specific address
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why these two? Cpufreq seems to be quite happy with the frequency tables. All frequencies are correctly listed, and the highest available for hardware and scaling are correct (say 1100, if I set it). But some "mysterious barrier" doesn't let the cpu clock as high as requested by cpufreq.
XDA_Bam said:
Why these two? Cpufreq seems to be quite happy with the frequency tables. All frequencies are correctly listed, and the highest available for hardware and scaling are correct (say 1100, if I set it). But some "mysterious barrier" doesn't let the cpu clock as high as requested by cpufreq.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
read the sources of the module it explains why we need to look at those values...
DooMLoRD said:
read the sources of the module it explains why we need to look at those values...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looked into it, and got the module to load and change frequencies by manually setting omap2_clk_init_cpufreq_table_addr=0xXXXXXX. I was able to underclock to 800 and back to 1000 MHz. 1200 was set, but not correctly applied - the mpu was still running at 1000 MHz. Further on, it ****ed up the frequency table. Instead of [300,600,800,1000] it was [600, 600, 1000, 1000] after the test. Not good
XDA_Bam said:
Looked into it, and got the module to load and change frequencies by manually setting omap2_clk_init_cpufreq_table_addr=0xXXXXXX. I was able to underclock to 800 and back to 1000 MHz. 1200 was set, but not correctly applied - the mpu was still running at 1000 MHz. Further on, it ****ed up the frequency table. Instead of [300,600,800,1000] it was [600, 600, 1000, 1000] after the test. Not good
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yups code needs some more patching but i am sure this is the way forward for stable overclock
I've got the basics working with a completely reworked sysfs interface (no module). See GitHub.
The idea is simple: At all times, there shall be no more than 4 OPPs enabled. For each overclock "wish", we disable the currently highest OPP, and enable the overclocked one. If this has no corresponding OPP yet, we create it.
The code works, and has the following problems / features:
Only the highest OPP can be set for now. Consequently, the overclock has to be higher than 800 MHz.
The voltage is not adjusted, yet. All overclock frequencies are run with the 1 GHz stock voltage.
The cpufreq table, policy and stats are not updated, yet
The cpu does not go into deep sleep after the clocks have been adjusted (possibly because the cpufreq table is wrong)
As OPPs are added to the table if necessary, it is theoretically possible to max out the OPP array by defining new frequencies hundreds of times (depending on the maximum array size).
To set the frequency (in MHz), type
Code:
echo "1100" > /sys/power/overclock_max_freq
It would be really cool if you could take a look, DooMLoRD. The only real problem I see right now is the cpufreq table. If this would be correctly updated, the rest would be "easy" I tried some stuff (not in the commit), but nothing worked, yet.
XDA_Bam said:
I've got the basics working with a completely reworked sysfs interface (no module). See GitHub.
The idea is simple: At all times, there shall be no more than 4 OPPs enabled. For each overclock "wish", we disable the currently highest OPP, and enable the overclocked one. If this has no corresponding OPP yet, we create it.
The code works, and has the following problems / features:
Only the highest OPP can be set for now. Consequently, the overclock has to be higher than 800 MHz.
The voltage is not adjusted, yet. All overclock frequencies are run with the 1 GHz stock voltage.
The cpufreq table, policy and stats are not updated, yet
The cpu does not go into deep sleep after the clocks have been adjusted (possibly because the cpufreq table is wrong)
As OPPs are added to the table if necessary, it is theoretically possible to max out the OPP array by defining new frequencies hundreds of times (depending on the maximum array size).
To set the frequency (in MHz), type
Code:
echo "1100" > /sys/power/overclock_max_freq
It would be really cool if you could take a look, DooMLoRD. The only real problem I see right now is the cpufreq table. If this would be correctly updated, the rest would be "easy" I tried some stuff (not in the commit), but nothing worked, yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is the same problem as with other overclocks i was playing with...
the cpufreq table doesnt get updated... only the module based way seems to change that table...
anyways we will have to investigate this further...
oh btw i have found patch to overclock GPU...
DooMLoRD said:
oh btw i have found patch to overclock GPU...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice. Hehe
I'm interested in overclocking my STAR N9588 it's the MTK6577 1ghz cortex a9 1gb ram and I wanna port this 1.4Ghz kernel over.
Can someone explain exactly how to do that?
thanks
1chris89 said:
I'm interested in overclocking my STAR N9588 it's the MTK6577 1ghz cortex a9 1gb ram and I wanna port this 1.4Ghz kernel over.
Can someone explain exactly how to do that?
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate, no OEM has realised JB Sources for the MTK6577 as of yet, well Wiko do realised ..
but our dev found them rather incomplete for successfully compiling a kernel!
Wow that really sucks
We should be able to overclock the MTK6577, right? If we put all of our brains together for some super brain storming...
Anyway couldn't I just go into each relevant file being probably 10 or more in /system/device I believe and there's all about max frequency and everything on all these CPU_MAX_FREQ files etc etc...
What do you think?
I just really think the MTK6577 needs some help in the HD decode department and especially a gpu overclock as even the Live wallpaper lags when scrolling...
*OH YEAH*
Can I port CM10 to my STAR N9588?
Thanks bro
1chris89 said:
Wow that really sucks
We should be able to overclock the MTK6577, right? If we put all of our brains together for some super brain storming...
Anyway couldn't I just go into each relevant file being probably 10 or more in /system/device I believe and there's all about max frequency and everything on all these CPU_MAX_FREQ files etc etc...
What do you think?
I just really think the MTK6577 needs some help in the HD decode department and especially a gpu overclock as even the Live wallpaper lags when scrolling...
*OH YEAH*
Can I port CM10 to my STAR N9588?
Thanks bro
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, This isnt the Right section to post..Contact a MOD to change the thread to appropraite one... CM isnt yet available for Mediatek phones...SO have to wait....
1chris89 said:
Wow that really sucks
We should be able to overclock the MTK6577, right? If we put all of our brains together for some super brain storming...
Anyway couldn't I just go into each relevant file being probably 10 or more in /system/device I believe and there's all about max frequency and everything on all these CPU_MAX_FREQ files etc etc...
What do you think?
I just really think the MTK6577 needs some help in the HD decode department and especially a gpu overclock as even the Live wallpaper lags when scrolling...
*OH YEAH*
Can I port CM10 to my STAR N9588?
Thanks bro
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All that is possible if we have a full tree of the sources.. without them even of you try to play with boot.IMG it won't boot and you will be stuck in a rut!
It appears overclocking the thing isn't that hard at all. Only problem is pull the right files, editing them then pushing them back. Like any file in /sys/devices/ etc I'm trying to adb pull /sys/devices and it doesn't seem to pull all the files. So I tried adb pull /sys/devices/*.* and it didn't seem to like that either. I tried editing the files and they simply don't save. So basically I need to say edit the files in the rom .zip prior to flashing in say TWRP and I can get a nice overclock no problem. It's not a matter of the stupid A** MTK crap it's a matter of modifying the android system (Cortex A9) portion with the updated files to allow for overclocking. As it's all so possible and they say the Cortex A9 can handle upwards of 1.6Ghz without any overvolt necessary.
Once I get this rolling I can help a few of you who are truly interested out. Unless you want to continue to think its impossible to do so then I say continue thinking that as it won't get you anywhere in life.
1chris89 said:
It appears overclocking the thing isn't that hard at all. Only problem is pull the right files, editing them then pushing them back. Like any file in /sys/devices/ etc I'm trying to adb pull /sys/devices and it doesn't seem to pull all the files. So I tried adb pull /sys/devices/*.* and it didn't seem to like that either. I tried editing the files and they simply don't save. So basically I need to say edit the files in the rom .zip prior to flashing in say TWRP and I can get a nice overclock no problem. It's not a matter of the stupid A** MTK crap it's a matter of modifying the android system (Cortex A9) portion with the updated files to allow for overclocking. As it's all so possible and they say the Cortex A9 can handle upwards of 1.6Ghz without any overvolt necessary.
Once I get this rolling I can help a few of you who are truly interested out. Unless you want to continue to think its impossible to do so then I say continue thinking that as it won't get you anywhere in life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hello
it is possible for our canvas 2 to overclock on jellybean all we have to do is port thunderzap kernel for jelly bean.
thats how the HTC explorer got jelly bean
but we dont have much devs
I need to edit the files within /sys/devices/ to increase the max governor clock and max info clock and then look up the cortex a9 power profiles from say a known to be stable device. Like any cortex a9 tablet to know what voltages are ideal.
They say the cortex a9 can handle 1.6ghz with little to no voltage increase.
I'd also like to overclock the gpu PowerVR SGX 531.
If I can I'm going to push for 2.0Ghz if possible.
****Can someone help me adb pull /sys/devices/? Like what command to completely copy all files from /sys/devices from adb and then edit the files and then adb push? Or create a CWM or TWRP .zip with the updated kernel files for overclock?
Thanks
1chris89 said:
I need to edit the files within /sys/devices/ to increase the max governor clock and max info clock and then look up the cortex a9 power profiles from say a known to be stable device. Like any cortex a9 tablet to know what voltages are ideal.
They say the cortex a9 can handle 1.6ghz with little to no voltage increase.
I'd also like to overclock the gpu PowerVR SGX 531.
If I can I'm going to push for 2.0Ghz if possible.
****Can someone help me adb pull /sys/devices/? Like what command to completely copy all files from /sys/devices from adb and then edit the files and then adb push? Or create a CWM or TWRP .zip with the updated kernel files for overclock?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That really sounds very noobish
1. You cannot simply pull the interfaces since they are symlinked infinitely
2. And do you think Mediatek will leave Clocksource interface controllable to do this? You cannot simply do "2Ghz" in the pulled interface and boom push it back to make your phone fly? eh? The new values will get RESET to original values since they are blocked/limited to the specific values. And thats why we have a thing called "Kernel Sources"
I found the mtk6577 source data... which shows the 1.2Ghz frequency available but it's not in the right table.
https://github.com/wiko-sources/cin.../platform/mt6577/kernel/core/cpufreq-mt6577.c
Maybe I could write a script like
#change cpu to 1.2Ghz by zhuzhuojie 2011-07-23 *EXAMPLE*
write /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor hybrid
write /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_setspeed 1209000
**If I can get the Motorola Xoom ElementalX kernel source data and compare and copy I think I can attempt to achieve 1.7Ghz**
#define DVFS_F1 (1001000) // KHz, 1/1 <---------- I say change this value to 1209000 or test beyond 1.2ghz until instability occurs.
#define DVFS_F2 ( 834166) // KHz, 5/6
#define DVFS_F3 ( 750750) // KHz, 3/4
#define DVFS_F4 ( 667333) // KHz, 2/3
#define DVFS_F5 ( 500500) // KHz, 1/2
#define DVFS_F6 ( 250250) // KHz, 1/4
#define DVFS_F7 ( 166833) // KHz, 1/6
#define DVFS_F1_TM (1209000) // KHz, 1/1
#define DVFS_F2_TM (1007500) // KHz, 5/6
#define DVFS_F3_TM ( 906750) // KHz, 3/4
#define DVFS_F4_TM ( 806000) // KHz, 2/3
#define DVFS_F5_TM ( 604500) // KHz, 1/2
#define DVFS_F6_TM ( 302250) // KHz, 1/4
#define DVFS_F7_TM ( 201500) // KHz, 1/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Operate Point Definition
****************************/
#define OP(cpufreq) \
{ \
.cpufreq_mhz = cpufreq, \
}
/***************************
* MT6575 E1 DVFS Table
****************************/
static struct mtk_cpu_freq_info mt6575_freqs_e1[] = {
OP(DVFS_F2_MT6575_E1),
OP(DVFS_F1_MT6575_E1),
};
/***************************
* MT6575 E2 DVFS Table
****************************/
static struct mtk_cpu_freq_info mt6575_freqs_e2[] = {
OP(DVFS_F4_MT6575_E2),
OP(DVFS_F3_MT6575_E2),
OP(DVFS_F2_MT6575_E2),
OP(DVFS_F1_MT6575_E2),
};
/***************************
* MT6577 E1 DVFS Table
****************************/
static struct mtk_cpu_freq_info mt6577_freqs_e1[] = {
OP(DVFS_F6_MT6577_E1),
OP(DVFS_F5_MT6577_E1),
OP(DVFS_F4_MT6577_E1),
OP(DVFS_F3_MT6577_E1),
OP(DVFS_F2_MT6577_E1),
OP(DVFS_F1_MT6577_E1),
};
/***************************
* MT6577 E1 TM DVFS Table
****************************/
static struct mtk_cpu_freq_info mt6577_freqs_e1_tm[] = {
OP(DVFS_F6_MT6577_E1_TM),
OP(DVFS_F5_MT6577_E1_TM),
OP(DVFS_F4_MT6577_E1_TM),
OP(DVFS_F3_MT6577_E1_TM),
OP(DVFS_F2_MT6577_E1_TM),
OP(DVFS_F1_MT6577_E1_TM),
};
static unsigned int mtk_cpu_freqs_num;
static struct mtk_cpu_freq_info *mtk_cpu_freqs;
static struct cpufreq_frequency_table *mtk_cpu_freqs_table;
extern struct kobject *power_kobj;
extern bool clkmgr_high_speed_check(void);
extern int cpufreq_state_set(int enable);
extern CHIP_VER get_chip_ver(void);
So have you tried? I'm really interested in getting this thing overclocked
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
@FooFighter312
What Device are you wanting to overclock specifically? Because your ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T uses a Nvidia Tegra 3 Quad Core with 5 cores in total all 4 running at 1.6Ghz by stock and the 5th being a power savings core. I've seen 2Ghz out of those but what I have seen is the Tegra 3 benefits primarily by a GPU core Clock increase to I believe 550Mhz was ideal for stability and at least a 20fps increase in game from my testing. Use TrixsterMod from Play Store with a modded kernel and root to push to 550Mhz.
***** IN REGARDS TO THE MTK6577 (ARM Cortex A9) *****
I used OPENSSH via the Play Store to use my PC to remote into the /sys/devices/ etc and change the parameters which doesn't sound hard. However when I changed parameters in files and tried saving it would either give me a permission error, or it would change the value back after I saved it.
Which makes me believe all the files/ parameters within /sys/devices/ etc are "Shadowed" by an unknown source of the system.
If I could determine where it's being shadowed from, I could then change it from the source. From there the "Shadowed" "Source" data would then automatically manipulate the files within /sys/devices/ and achieve the overclocked speeds. According to my research the MTK6577 and the ARM Cortex A9 in particular are using a voltage well beyond it's theoretical optimum. Meaning it's using more voltage than required for firstly stability, but also the ease of overclocking to huge speeds without ever needing to touch the voltage! According to several sources and ARM directly, they put enough volts into the 1Ghz stock speed to usually be able to achieve up to 1.6Ghz without a volt increase. However anything beyond 1.6Ghz requires a heavy volt increase which would ultimately result in epic amounts of heat.
If anyone can give more info on this that would be excellent!
Thanks
I was referring to the MTK6577 for my UMI X1. As far as I've seen there are no custom kernels for my device and the stock one just isn't enough for me. I'd like to push it a little further if possible, and I also would like more governors and io schedulers available. Another problem is that when I change any of the settings, they automatically revert to stock after a reboot.
I'm quite a noob when it comes to programming, especially on android, but I'm learning slowly. Right now I'm just an advanced user, nothing more.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
no update tutorial?
costum kernel for axioo picopad 5Gew
please custom kernel for axioo Picopad 5 GEW. mtk6577 dual-core 1GHz 512mb ram so that support for overclocking. 1.4 Ghz and swaap
Hullo, I've come across a smartphone newly offered by a provider and its a device totally unknown. Further increase to its mystery, there is nothing (zero) on Google about the smartphone. The name is Vooz Vapor. Does anyone know anything about this mysterious smartphone? Is there any info on this device anywhere online? I'm just in shock that there's nothing I could find about it. I will post the only picture soon that the provider posted on Facebook. Its mind-boggling that its the first time ever that I am unable to find information about a smartphone. Please post several links if ya can. Hopefully someone is lucky on finding anything about this device. Yes, its spelled Vooz Vapor.
I've received a response from True Wireless on FB that Vooz Vapor are designed and made exclusively for them. Yesterday, they announced that the device are ready for VIP members and that it will be available for everyone soon. True Wireless are working on the webpage addition to their website with full info and specs. I don't know if they will also have cases made for Vooz Vapor.
Are there any company/website where people can order a custom made case for the smartphone? The device is only made for True Wireless, so people will not be able to buy cases and will only be able to buy cases (if they are going to make them) from True Wireless. Just wondering if a company/business online can create special cases upon request.
This is the first time I've ever seen a company operating government program to have exclusive smartphone made for them and the True Wireless customers. Can't wait to see the info/specs. I will still keep and use my HTC EVO 3D and not likely to get the Vooz Vapor for various reasons.
I hope someone on here will have the Vooz Vapor and share the experience/review.
alps vapor specs/ build prop
General Specifications
Manufacturer alps
Model Vapor
Android version 4.4.2; eng.buildsrv3.1432694477; SDK19
CPU 2 cores; ARMv7 Processor rev 3 (v7l); Max: 1001.0 MHz; Min: 598.0 MHz
Display 480 x 320; DPI: 160; Evaluated Size: 3.6"
Touch screen Multitouch 2 points
GPU Mali-400 MP; ARM; OpenGL ES-CM 1.1; OpenGL ES 2.0
RAM 256 MB (232 MB available)
Flash 0.188 GB; 16 GB (14.837 GB actual); 0.5 GB (0.457 GB actual) (see memory map tab)
Communications
Phone GSM, Dual SIM; Net: UMTS
WiFi ; IEEE 802.11 b/g/n; MediaTek 6572; AP Mode
USB Host Yes
Bluetooth Bluetooth 4.0 + A2DP
GPS Yes
Advanced Features
Front camera Photo: 1.2 MP; Max: 1280x960; Video: 2.1 MP; Max: 1920x1080; Focus: auto infinity continuous-picture continuous-video; Flash modes: off on auto red-eye torch
Back camera Photo: 0.3 MP; Max size: 640x480; Video: 2.1 MP; Max: 1920x1080; Focus: auto infinity continuous-picture continuous-video; Flash modes: off
Sensors KXTJ2-1009 3-axis Accelerometer (Kionix); range: 0...32; resolution: 0.004 (0.012%); power: 0.13mA;
Vibrator Yes
Supported languages 65; Afrikaans; Amharic; Arabic; Azerbaijani; Belarusian; Bulgarian; Bengali; Catalan; Czech; Welsh; Danish; German; Greek; English; Spanish; Estonian; Basque; Persian; Finnish; Filipino; French; Galician; Gujarati; Hebrew; Hindi; Croatian; Hungarian; Armenian; Indonesian; Icelandic; Italian; Japanese; Georgian; Khmer; Kannada; Korean; Lithuanian; Latvian; Malayalam; Marathi; Malay; Norwegian; Nepali; Dutch; Polish; Portuguese; Romansh; Romanian; Russian; Sinhala; Slovak; Slovenian; Serbian; Swedish; Swahili; Tamil; Telugu; Thai; Filipino; Turkish; Ukrainian; Urdu; Vietnamese; Chinese; Zulu
Battery Technology: Li-ion; Voltage: 3980
FM radio FM Radio
SD Version: 1.1 7
I had it for one day and its the most horrible new device ever made. Its disgusting!!! After issues with the HTC EVO 3D not connecting to 3G/4G Data (only 1X), they tried 8 other same devices, but wouldn't activate. Then I was offered to have the $350 Vooz Vapor for free and I took it. Absolutely horrible! I could only download one or two apps (depending on file size) and was severely limited). I returned it and asked for the best smartphone they have available. Within a few days, they found me a LG Viper and I took it. Data works and overall a lot better than the HTC EVO 3D and defeinitely better than the Vooz Vapor made for True Wireless. I know a lot of people will be very unhappy when they purchase too high $350 for a device that is of specs made for 10 years ago. Dunno why True Wireless had a device made as their own to be this horrible. I'm happy with the LG Viper for the government assistance program.
I bought this phone from GoTrueWireless on their website a couple of months ago for $30.00. I didn't expect too much for an Android phone for $30.00, but when I got it, I was really surprised what it has for features. It supports 3G/4G Internet data, a pretty decent browser, camera that has both front and rear lenses, it takes very decent video, a WiFi hotspot option where you can make it a hotspot, using your phone data, to connect up to 8 devices with, a Movie Maker app, and other things. It allows you to install Apps from Google Play Store. But one thing to mention. The manual sucks and the WiFi hot spot, among other options, are not very easy to find, as they are not in the terrible manual that comes with it. My suggestion is toss out the manual and just explore the phones features and settings. Other than that, it's a very decent phone, much better than I thought for its price. It is smaller than your standard Android phone, but I like that as it makes it that much more portable to me. Battery life is very decent, but if you keep your WiFi hotspot always turned on, along with your data so you don't unknowingly suck up all your data, is that eats your battery faster. The options to turn both off are there, but you have to find it, as the manual is crappy.
Hi Guys, this is a continuation from initial discussion (and my promise) on InsigniuX kernel thread HERE
UPDATE 1 : After further testing, incorporate input boost to CPU 1 and 5 actually help the performance without affecting battery, as long as we set it within the optimal frequency. I also put fine tuning in hispeed_delay value, please use latest Profile File if you are using PRESET, or check the new values bellow if you do manual config
NOTE : If you are too lazy too read all the technical stuff, simply download the PRESET KERNEL ADIUTOR PROFILE HERE, and apply it to your Kernel Adiutor (choose "profile" from side bar, hit the (+) icon, and choose "import" and choose the downloaded .json file)
as we all know and aware, we always look and try to find the most optimum configuration to achieve best battery life without sacrificing performance. And while of course Qualcomm and Xiaomi have the most talented developers in their team, sometimes the implementation between both in their mass product might left a room for improvement. And in that exact room, we as community here play our role,
so, in an attempt to get a better fluidness out of this device, without sacrificing battery life, i remember one of the guide made by @soniCron i used to stumbled upon few years ago. This Guide give a very detail insight on how to optimize the interactive governor on almost any device/any kernel/any rom (as long as you have root), and thats what i gonna try to apply to our device - if you want to check the guide yourself : HERE
so i take a look into Whyred Kernel Sources to see the voltage values being used by our processor for each frequency step. And here's the voltage/speed table in case you want to see :
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
from that table, we can see which frequencies are using most power, and where is the most jump in voltage usage happen when switching between frequency.
Higher voltage jump will cost more power, means less battery life.
in conclusion, i found few frequencies which are less favorable, which is
LITTLE CPU :
1136Mhz - step by step Speed Gain is fine, but when compared to straight jump to 1401Mhz, the Speed to Power Ratio is become less favourable
1536Mhz - Smallest Speed Gain compared to Power Usage
and i also found some which might be the best/favourite frequencies :
LITTLE & BIG CPU :
900Mhz - Best contender for base speed, as it use almost same power with 633Mhz, but with plenty of speed gain
1401Mhz - Good Speed to Power Ratio
and
1747Mhz - Good Speed to Power Ratio for BIG CPU
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now we take into account of the minimum frequency needed to ensure smooth task (if you dont know what am talking about, read the GUIDE i mention in my opening paragraph) :fingers-crossed:
For Whyred, i've found the best frequency is as following :
Idle = 633MHz (Lowest we can go at the moment)
Scrolling = 900MHz (Use Chrome browser to scroll Facebook in desktop mode)
Video = 1401MHz (Play 1080p*60fps videos in Youtube app)
App load = 1747MHz (Can use any app really)
High load = 1843MHz (Max out just in case)
Using the formula take from soniCron guide, i tried calculate optimum CPU load (this will be used as target load config) config for each frequencies
If you want to see the formulas :
Code:
We want to determine 2 values for every available clock rate: the maximal efficient load and the minimal efficient load. To make this determination, we need to bust out our calculators. (Or spreadsheets!)
For the maximal efficient load, we want to correlate a load value no higher than 90% of a given clock rate before it would be more efficient to jump to the next clock rate–to avoid overwhelming a particular rate while avoiding premature jumps to the next. For this value, we calculate it as:
(clock rate * 0.9) / next highest clock rate
For example, the maximal efficient load for 600Mhz on the Nexus 5X would be calculated as:
(600000 * 0.9) / 672000 = 80.36% (rounded and normalized: 80)
For the minimal efficient load, we want to correlate a load value at which anything higher would be better served by a higher clock rate. To calculate this:
(1 - next highest clock rate / clock rate) * -1
For example, the minimal efficient load for 600Mhz on the Nexus 5X would be calculated as:
(1 - 672000 / 600000) * -1 = 12.00% (rounded and normalized: 12)
with this config, logically speaking we want to make the Governor to favour the "best" frequencies above, and minimize the usage of unfavourable freqs.
LITTLE
Code:
633Mhz : 63
900Mhz : 71
1136Mhz : 23
1401Mhz : 82
1536Mhz : 4
1612Mhz : 83
BIG
Code:
1136Mhz : 73
1401Mhz : 9
1747Mhz : 85
1843Mhz : 90
Now that we already get the optimum number, time to apply it
Use your favorite Kernel Manager, in my case, am using Kernel Adiutor, and go to CPU Config - CPU Governor Tunables and input these value (am using Hawktail base profile from soniCron thread, as it seems it work best for most of devices, and i already do trial & error with some other value like timer rate as well ) :
(LITTLE)
Code:
align_windows:1
go_hispeed_load: 95
above_hispeed_delay: 0 633600:60000 902400:75000 1401600:100000
timer_rate: 80000
hispeed_freq: 902400
timer_slack: 200000
target_loads: 70 633600:63 92400:71 1113600:23 1401600:82 1536600:4 1612800:83
min_sample_time: 35000
boost: 0
boostpulse_duration: 0
(BIG)
Code:
align_windows:1
go_hispeed_load: 95
above_hispeed_delay: 32000 1136000:60000 1401600:75000 1747200:80000
timer_rate: 60000
hispeed_freq: 1747200
timer_slack: 100000
target_loads: 98 1113600:23 1401600:9 1747200:85 1804200:94
min_sample_time: 20000
boost: 0
boostpulse_duration: 0
Other necessary adjustment :
Boost : ON For CPU 1 at 902400 and CPU 5 at 1401600 both for 100ms
Min Big CPU Hot Plug : 0
Disable all Toggle in Thermal Section
Run Terminal and command :
Code:
su
stop perfd
or Install this MAGISK MODULE to disable Stock Thermal & Hotplug Control (Courtesy of @Mr.Nguyen0504)
Now you can test it. Do full charge and use it normally, see whether you can see the improvement or not,
be mind that this config is not really adjusted towards battery life, but rather overall fluidness/performance, yet without sacrificing too much power
Hopefully it helps you as it seems to help me (you can expect no less than 7-8Hrs SoT, am quite heavy user myself, with 2 WhatsApp account and 1 LINE account constantly active. YouTube & Gaming at least hour/day as well). Discussion is more than welcome here, as these are considered an initial calculations that still yet to furtherly fine tuned for our CPU.
Thanks mate, was waiting for this.
Initial thoughts = project butter:good:
xdarkstar said:
Thanks mate, was waiting for this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
please let me know the experience, i only test it with my personal preferences, so your desire with your device may vary
but i think it shouldnt be that far
otonieru said:
please let me know the experience, i only test it with my personal preferences, so your desire with your device may vary
but i think it shouldnt be that far
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent guide as well. Will test parameters over the weekend.
I will test this
mxilil said:
I will test this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes please,
in the meantime, i also testing another config with input boost enabled, and some fine adjustment to hispeed_delay,
if it turn out to be better, i might create 2nd preset, along with custom control to disable BCL and Perfd. So we do not need to type it in terminal manually after reboot and let adiutor do that.
otonieru said:
Run Terminal and command :
Code:
su
stop perfd
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think "stop perf-hal-1-0" is the proper command.
@otonieru Great thread, very nice presentation of the matter with just the right info and setup example.
I have followed the same tutorial for my previous device but ended up using the tunables from my ROM maintainer as I never managed to calculate it properly, probably because I overlooked the voltage jumps.
Now, I wonder whether the minimum freqs of 300mhz for both clusters would help in battery life gains, taking into account the proper target loads are set for both and "timer_rate" and "min_sample_time" are tuned to make CPU ramp up quickly to avoid lags and stutters.
Logically, voltage is lower for lower frequencies, but in this case, 300mhz and 633mhz might be the same on little cluster or the voltage jump might be insignificant, but the voltage jump on big cluster might be bigger. And since the big cluster is on minimum frequency most of the time we might see some gains there.
Can you check the sources of some kernels with full range of frequencies (not the ones who have undervolt applied) and see the voltage tables?
Where is perfd located, or the file that contains the values for perfd daemon? It seems that the terminal command to disable it doesn't work, on any load except standby it still hits 1612mhz on little cluster, which is extremely annoying.
EDIT: There is no line about running state of perfd like this:
Code:
[init.svc.perfd]: [running]
There is only a line pointing at the presence of perf daemon I believe. Does this mean that perfd is not running on my system at all, so the "stop perfd" command doesn't do anything?
EDIT2: My bad people, I've set target loads for 1536 and 1612 to 4 and 8 respectively, by missing another number. Now I've set them to 98 and 100 as it was set on my previous device for two of the highest CPU steps, now the use of freqs seems much better and the device performs nice.
Cirra92 said:
Where is perfd located, or the file that contains the values for perfd daemon? It seems that the terminal command to disable it doesn't work, on any load except standby it still hits 1612mhz on little cluster, which is extremely annoying.
EDIT: There is no line about running state of perfd like this:
There is only a line pointing at the presence of perf daemon I believe. Does this mean that perfd is not running on my system at all, so the "stop perfd" command doesn't do anything?
EDIT2: My bad people, I've set target loads for 1536 and 1612 to 4 and 8 respectively, by missing another number. Now I've set them to 98 and 100 as it was set on my previous device for two of the highest CPU steps, now the use of freqs seems much better and the device performs nice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, i didnt include 300Mhz in my calculation because i try to check various whyred kernel source, and found that not too many of them make the 300Mhz available to beanually selected, but i do check the voltage used by 300Mhz and its saving is almost neglectible,
and as i do this tweak based on my current kernel set up (InsigniuX), i do it with 633 as base.
as for 1612 being used much,
i found that there's probably a bug in our device kernel code that make cpu sometimes lock in its highest frequency (1804 & 1612), it only happen after you restart the phone, (and it happen with most kernel out there, so its not literally the dev mistake, more like xiaomi messed up some codes)
the fix for now is by opening adiutor, ensuring that the freq not locked up. If its locked, change it back manually to 633 and 1133 (for small and big respectively), i found that it manage to stay until another reboot.
my cpu usage is as how i expected from my target load. so i think it play nicely for now.
After further testing, i update the config to incorporate boost & better tuning of hispeed_delay for each frequencies,
please check main post
otonieru said:
After further testing, i update the config to incorporate boost & better tuning of hispeed_delay for each frequencies,
please check main post
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am still on first charge since tweaking the kernel. So far it seems that the battery life is going to be the same, but it feels to me that everything is just a bit faster now, app opening and loading times are shorter and a bit smoother, might be a placebo, but it works nice.
One thing you should fix in main post, your target load for 1612 mhz in little cluster is set to 8, but in calculations it is 83, I suppose you missed the 3 when you wrote the tunables
I am going to update the settings you added after it falls to 20% and I recharge it.
One more thing, if I use the Magisk module for thermal and hotplug (or simply turn off the Core control in Kernel manager) does it mean that the cores will go offline if there is no load?
I remember having different hotplug solutions on SD801 devices which actually turned off 3 cores and left only one to do basic functions in deep sleep, or turn on 2 of them when there is low load on the CPU.
@Cirra92 ah right ! i might hit the backspace accidently, LoL
about hotplug, honestly am still testing it myself to figure whether the config work as intended or not, since the behaviour of this chipset it quite different. And since oreo its a bit harder to really track the cpu activities, we need to run an app to see the activities, but the app itself is giving load to cpu, thus the reading might not actually accurate.
1. Can you repost the voltage table image again? i can't see or is it missing? i really need this voltage info table, I've been playing with kernel tweaks this last few weeks.
2. On your 1st post,little cpu target load arguments are as follows : target_loads: 70 633600:63 92400:71 1113600:23 1401600:82 1536600:4 1612800:83
I don't think its the right setup. the first argument is target load which is 70, is affecting all freq starting from lowest to the highest (if there are no more arguments). but on 2nd argument you write 633600:63 (assuming 633600 is our lowest freq) then the first target load (70) has no effect. cpu target load for lowest freq (633Mhz) will be 63%, at 902Mhz the target load max is 71% and so on. And your screenshot shows the setup behavior. It idles at 633 then only spend small amount of time at 902 and 1401 and go right at the max freq for almost one and a half hours of total. If you want 633600 max target load 63% then the setup as follow :
target_loads: 63 92400:71 1113600:23 1401600:82 1536600:4 1612800:83
It means max target load from the lowest freq (633Mhz) will be 63% until below 902400. at 902400 max target load is 71% until below 1113600... and so on.
CMIIW
blackbellz said:
1. Can you repost the voltage table image again? i can't see or is it missing? i really need this voltage info table, I've been playing with kernel tweaks this last few weeks.
2. On your 1st post,little cpu target load arguments are as follows : target_loads: 70 633600:63 92400:71 1113600:23 1401600:82 1536600:4 1612800:83
I don't think its the right setup. the first argument is target load which is 70, is affecting all freq starting from lowest to the highest (if there are no more arguments). but on 2nd argument you write 633600:63 (assuming 633600 is our lowest freq) then the first target load (70) has no effect. cpu target load for lowest freq (633Mhz) will be 63%, at 902Mhz the target load max is 71% and so on. And your screenshot shows the setup behavior. It idles at 633 then only spend small amount of time at 902 and 1401 and go right at the max freq for almost one and a half hours of total. If you want 633600 max target load 63% then the setup as follow :
target_loads: 63 92400:71 1113600:23 1401600:82 1536600:4 1612800:83
It means max target load from the lowest freq (633Mhz) will be 63% until below 902400. at 902400 max target load is 71% until below 1113600... and so on.
CMIIW
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i still can see the table, probably the connection from xda server is not good, its kinda patchy nowaday,
and btw, maybe you are right about the target loads. Although as i mentioned as well, that this config is lean more towards percormance, so its kinda intended from my side. But am still testing some other value as well, and i gonna try with your value as well.
as for now, my current set up is quite satisfy me.
crap, i cant even attach 2 picture in one post
otonieru said:
After further testing, i update the config to incorporate boost & better tuning of hispeed_delay for each frequencies,
please check main post
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you add an image of the voltage table? The original image is not visible^^
otonieru said:
i still can see the table, probably the connection from xda server is not good, its kinda patchy nowaday,
and btw, maybe you are right about the target loads. Although as i mentioned as well, that this config is lean more towards percormance, so its kinda intended from my side. But am still testing some other value as well, and i gonna try with your value as well.
as for now, my current set up is quite satisfy me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i tought this was towards battery but still keeping performance.
Try it or die said:
Can you add an image of the voltage table? The original image is not visible^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, it's not visible. But OP said its visible to him...
raptorddd said:
i tought this was towards battery but still keeping performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, its the other way round as i wrote in my main post, LoL. But i guess 9-10Hrs SoT is more thwn enough wasnt it ?