On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 08:19:55AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:03:26 -0700 > Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > The current implementation always round down the duty and period > > > values, while it would be better to round them to the closest integer. > > > > Agreed. As I noted to you elsewhere, not having this change can cause > > problems where doing a series of pwm_get_state() / modify / > > pwm_apply_state() will propagate rounding errors, which will change the > > period unexpectedly. e.g., I have an expected period of 3.333 us and a > > clk rate of 112.666667 MHz -- the clock frequency doesn't divide evenly, > > so the period (stashed in nanoseconds) shrinks when we convert to the > > register value and back, as follows: > > > > pwm_apply_state(): register = period * 112666667 / 1000000000; > > pwm_get_state(): period = register * 1000000000 / 112666667; > > > > or in other words: > > > > period = period * 112666667 / 1000000000 * 1000000000 / 112666667; > > > > which yields a sequence like: > > > > 3333 -> 3328 > > 3328 -> 3319 > > 3319 -> 3310 > > 3310 -> 3301 > > 3301 -> 3292 > > 3292 -> ... (etc) ... > > > > With this patch, we'd see instead: > > > > period = div_round_closest(period * 112666667, 1000000000) * 1000000000 / 112666667; > > > > which yields a stable sequence: > > > > 3333 -> 3337 > > 3337 -> 3337 > > 3337 -> ... (etc) ... > > Woh! Thanks for the detailed explanation. Do you want me to put that in > a comment explaining why we're using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL()? If you'd like, feel free to add some of this to your v2 description. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
