It appears this is selected at compile time using a #define in the SDK. I would certainly assume increased power consumption, however the Picos are definitely able to handle this increased consumption, as I would assume other boards are.
I would say the approach would be no different than configuring the clock speed on an STM32, asides from not having to configure multiple sub-clocks and just changing one in the configuration. Personally I'm of the opinion that the highest rated clock speed should be the default, and users can turn it down if they require lower power consumption. I do not know how much of an increase in power is required for the speed increase, but I do know that the speed increase is rated for any board with >1.15V supply. On Fri, Feb 21, 2025, 10:12 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 7:53 PM Matteo Golin <matteo.go...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Recently the RP2040 has officially been rated up to 200MHz by Raspberry > Pi, a bump from the 125MHz speeds it was > > initially rated for. It appears the Pico SDK has been updated recently > to allow users to use the new rated speed. > > > > Here's an interesting conversation about the topic on the Arduino > project: > > https://github.com/earlephilhower/arduino-pico/issues/2814 > > > > I think we should discuss the same thing here for NuttX. Should we > update the RP2040 to now use 200MHz as the default, > > since that is its rated speed? And we should then update the version of > the Pico SDK mentioned in our documentation so > > that users can leverage the new clock speed. I would propose that at the > same time we update that in the documentation, > > we perhaps include the installation/build procedure for the SDK and > picotool on a common doc page (the RP2040 chip page) > > so that we don't need to update every single RP2040 board page with the > new version when we upgrade on the NuttX side. > > That way each board page can simply link to the installation procedure > (afaik none of them have a different procedure). > > Good idea Matteo :-) I bought rPI-Pico(-W) and rpi-Pico-2(-W) 4 boards > just for testing but I am not familiar with the hw :-) > > Would it be good to allow users to select clock frequency? If 125MHz > -> 200MHz that would imply increased power consumption too? Can it be > easily changed at runtime? > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >
