Hi Uwe,
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 14:15, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Baolin,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:34:27AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 23:03, Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:46:11PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The hardware provides a counter that is feed by the source clock.
> > > > + * The period length is (PRESCALE + 1) * MOD counter steps.
> > > > + * The duty cycle length is (PRESCALE + 1) * DUTY counter steps.
> > > > + * Thus the period_ns and duty_ns calculation formula should be:
> > > > + * period_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC * (prescale + 1) * mod / clk_rate
> > > > + * duty_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC * (prescale + 1) * duty / clk_rate
> > > > + */
> > > > + val = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE);
> > > > + prescale = val & SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE_MSK;
> > > > + tmp = (prescale + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX;
> > > > + state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
> > > > +
> > > > + val = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_DUTY);
> > > > + duty = val & SPRD_PWM_DUTY_MSK;
> > > > + tmp = (prescale + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC * duty;
> > > > + state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Disable PWM clocks if the PWM channel is not in enable state. */
> > > > + if (!state->enabled)
> > > > + clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(SPRD_PWM_CHN_CLKS_NUM, chn->clks);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int sprd_pwm_config(struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > + int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[pwm->hwpwm];
> > > > + u32 prescale, duty;
> > > > + u64 tmp;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The hardware provides a counter that is feed by the source clock.
> > > > + * The period length is (PRESCALE + 1) * MOD counter steps.
> > > > + * The duty cycle length is (PRESCALE + 1) * DUTY counter steps.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * To keep the maths simple we're always using MOD = SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX.
> > >
> > > Did you spend some thoughts about how wrong your period can get because
> > > of that "lazyness"?
> > >
> > > Let's assume a clk rate of 100/3 MHz. Then the available period lengths
> > > are:
> > >
> > > PRESCALE = 0 -> period = 7.65 µs
> > > PRESCALE = 1 -> period = 15.30 µs
> > > ...
> > > PRESCALE = 17 -> period = 137.70 µs
> > > PRESCALE = 18 -> period = 145.35 µs
> > >
> > > So the error can be up to (nearly) 7.65 µs (or in general
> >
> > Yes, but for our use case (pwm backlight), the precision can meet our
> > requirement. Moreover, we usually do not change the period, just
> > adjust the duty to change the back light.
>
> Is this a license requirement for you SoC to only drive a backlight with
> the PWM? The idea of having a PWM driver on your platform is that it can
> also be used to control a step motor or a laser.
Not a license requirement. Until now we have not got any higher
precision requirements, and we've run this driver for many years in
our downstream kernel.
> > > 255 / clk_rate) because if 145.34 µs is requested you configure
> > > PRESCALE = 17 and so yield a period of 137.70 µs. If however you'd pick
> >
> > I did not get you here, if period is 145.34, we still get the
> > corresponding PRESCALE = 18 by below formula:
> >
> > tmp = (u64)chn->clk_rate * period_ns;
> > do_div(tmp, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX) - 1;
>
> I assumed you switch back to rounding down to match your comment and
> which is how I think a pwm should behave. With rounding down we get
> PRESCALE = 17 as I claimed.
OK.
>
> > > PRESCALE = 18 and MOD = 254 you get a period of 144.78 µs and so the
> > > error is only 0.56 µs which is a factor of 13 better.
> > >
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > > > + * The value for PRESCALE is selected such that the resulting period
> > > > + * gets the maximal length not bigger than the requested one with the
> > > > + * given settings (MOD = SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX and input clock).
> > > > + */
> > > > + duty = duty_ns * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX / period_ns;
> > >
> > > I wonder if you loose some precision here as you use period_ns but might
> > > actually implement a shorter period.
> > >
> > > Quick example, again consider clk_rate = 100 / 3 MHz,
> > > period_ns = 145340, duty_ns = 72670. Then you end up with
> > >
> > > PRESCALE = 17
> > > MOD = 255
> > > DUTY = 127
> >
> > Incorrect, we will get PRESCALE = 18, MOD = 255, DUTY = 127.
> >
> > > That corresponds to period_ns = 137700, duty_ns = 68580. With DUTY = 134
> > > you get 72360 ns which is still smaller than the requested 72670 ns.
> >
> > Incorrect, with DUTY = 134 (PRESCALE = 18 -> period = 145.35 µs),
> > duty_ns = 76380ns
>
> Yes, as above. When using rounding-closest your error is not in [0, 7.65
> µs] but in [-3.825 µs, 3.825 µs]. Doesn't make it better.
Actually our use case really dose not care about this error.
>
> > > (But then again it is not obvious which of the two is the "better"
> > > approximation because Thierry doesn't seem to see the necessity to
> > > discuss or define a policy here.)
> >
> > Like I said, this is the simple calculation formula which can meet our
> > requirement (we limit our DUTY value can only be 0 - 254).
> > duty = duty_ns * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX / period_ns;
>
> simple is often good but sometimes different from correct. And even with
I do not think this is incorrect.
> rounding closest instead of rounding down you're giving away precision
> here and the size of the error interval is the same, it is just centered
> around 0 instead of only positive. If I hadn't spend so much time with
> pwm reviews this week I'd try to come up with an example.
I am very appreciated for your comments.
> > > (And to pick up the thoughts about not using SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX
> > > unconditionally, you could also use
> > >
> > > PRESCALE = 18
> > > MOD = 254
> > > DUTY = 127
> > >
> > > yielding period_ns = 144780 and duty_ns = 72390. Summary:
> > >
> > > Request: 72670 / 145340
> > > your result: 68580 / 137700
> > > also possible: 72390 / 144780
> > >
> > > Judge yourself.)
> > >
> > > > + tmp = (u64)chn->clk_rate * period_ns;
> > > > + do_div(tmp, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > + prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX) - 1;
> > >
> > > Now that you use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL the comment is wrong because you
> > > might provide a period bigger than the requested one. Also you divide
> >
> > Again, that's the precision can meet our requirement.
>
> If you go back to rounding down, use the matching rounding up in
> .get_state and adapt your comment describing you're sticking to MOD=255
> to say explicitly that you're loosing precision I can live with that. I
> even did the math for .get_state in my previous mail for you.
>
> The idea of the requirement to round down is that I want to introduce
> this as policy for the PWM framework to get some uniform behaviour from
Have you made a consensus about this? Documented it?
> all lowlevel drivers. If you do this now I won't bother you later when
> the requirement is implemented in your driver. And the comment helps
> someone who evaluates your SoC to judge if there is still work to do if
> they have higher requirements for the PWM.
So what you asked is something like below, right?
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
index 96f8aa0..1d3db94 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
@@ -103,12 +103,12 @@ static void sprd_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip
*chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
val = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE);
prescale = val & SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE_MSK;
tmp = (prescale + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX;
- state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
+ state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
val = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_DUTY);
duty = val & SPRD_PWM_DUTY_MSK;
tmp = (prescale + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC * duty;
- state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
+ state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
/* Disable PWM clocks if the PWM channel is not in enable state. */
if (!state->enabled)
@@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ static int sprd_pwm_config(struct sprd_pwm_chip
*spc, struct pwm_device *pwm,
duty = duty_ns * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX / period_ns;
tmp = (u64)chn->clk_rate * period_ns;
- do_div(tmp, NSEC_PER_SEC);
- prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX) - 1;
+ div = 1000000000ULL * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX;
+ prescale = div64_u64(tmp, div) - 1;
if (prescale > SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE_MSK)
prescale = SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE_MSK;
But our MOD is constant, it did not help to improve the precision.
Instead, like you said, when period_ns = 145340, we will set PRESCALE
= 17, so in .get_state(), user will get period_ns = 137700 (error
is145340 - 137700).
But if we use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST, in .get_state(), user will get
period_ns = 145350 (error is145350 - 145340).
> > > twice instead of once before. (I don't know what architecture your SoC
> > > uses, but compared to a multiplication a division is usually expensive.)
> > > Also the math is more complicated now as you have a round-down div and a
> > > round-closest div.
> > >
> > > My preference for how to fix that is to restore the behaviour of v2 that
> > > matches the comment and adapt .get_state() instead.
> >
> > Using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL can get a same prescale which matches with
> > .get_state().
>
> I don't get you here. Do you say that with DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL you get
> the same result but DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL matches .get_state while
> rounding down doesn't? I cannot follow.
Yes, that's what I mean.
--
Baolin Wang
Best Regards
