Heiner,
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 18.05.2023 22:04, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:34 PM Dmitry Rokosov
> > <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> Additionally, the CCF determines the best ancestor based on how close
> >>>> its rate is to the given one, based on arithmetic calculations. However,
> >>>> we have independent knowledge that a certain clock would be better, with
> >>>> less jitter and fewer intermediaries, which will likely improve energy
> >>>> efficiency. Sadly, the CCF cannot take this into account.
> >>> I agree that the implementation in CCF is fairly simple. There's ways
> >>> to trick it though: IIRC if there are multiple equally suitable clocks
> >>> it picks the first one. For me all of this has worked so far which is
> >>> what makes me curious in this case (not saying that anything is wrong
> >>> with your approach).
> >>>
> >>> Do you have a (real world) example where the RTC clock should be
> >>> preferred over another clock?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, a real-life example is the need for a 32Khz clock for an external
> >> wifi chip. There is one option to provide this clock with high
> >> precision, which is RTC + GENCLK.
> >>
> >>> I'm thinking about the following scenario.
> >>> PWM parents:
> >>> - XTAL: 24MHz
> >>> - sys: not sure - let's say 166.67MHz
> >>> - RTC: 32kHz
> >>>
> >>> Then after that there's a divider and a gate.
> >>>
> >>> Let's say the PWM controller needs a 1MHz clock: it can take that from
> >>> XTAL or sys. Since XTAL is evenly divisible to 1MHz CCF will pick that
> >>> and use the divider.
> >>> But let's say the PWM controller needs a 32kHz clock: CCF would
> >>> automatically pick the RTC clock.
> >>> So is your implementation there to cover let's say 1kHz where
> >>> mathematically 24MHz can be divided evenly to 1kHz (and thus should
> >>> not result in any jitter) but RTC gives better precision in the real
> >>> world (even though it's off by 24Hz)?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think so. The highest precision that RTC can provide is from a
> >> 32KHz rate only. However, I believe that a 1kHz frequency can also be
> >> achieved by using xtal 24MHz with a divider, which can provide high
> >> precision as well.
> > Thank you again for the great discussion on IRC today.
> > Here's my short summary so I don't forget before you'll follow up on this.
> >
> > In general there's two known cases where the RTC clock needs to be used:
> > a) When using the GENCLK output of the SoC to output the 32kHz RTC
> > clock and connect that to an SDIO WiFi chip clock input (this seems
> > useful in my understanding because the RTC clock provides high
> > precision)
> > b) When using the PWM controller to output a 32kHz clock signal. In
> > this case my understanding is that using the RTC clock as input to the
> > PWM controller results in the best possible signal
> >
> > The second case won't be supported with Heiner's patches [0] that use
> > CCF (common clock framework) in the PWM controller driver.
> > In this series the parent clock is calculated using:
> > freq = div64_u64(NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)0xffff, period);
> >
> > A 32kHz clock means a PWM period of 30518ns. So with the above
>
> To be precise: 30517,578125ns
> What means that the PWM framework can't say "I want 32768Hz",
> but just "I want something being very close to 32768Hz".
> So what you need is some simple heuristic to interpret the
> PWM request -> "PWM requests 30518ns, but supposedly it wants
> 32768Hz"
>
> NSEC_PER_SEC / 30518 = 32767 (rounded down from 32767,547)
> clk_round_rate(channel->clk, 32767) would return 0 (I *think*),
> because it tries to find the next lower clock.
>
> The SoC families I'm familiar with have fclkin2 as PWM parent.
> That's 1 GHz in my case, what results in a frequency of 32.767,547Hz
> for period = 30518n.
> What you're saying is that newer generations don't have PWM parents
> >24MHz any longer?
No, of course not. For example, a fixed PLL (with all fclk_divX
settings) has rates higher than 24MHz. However, we need to consider the
'heavy' background of such PWM.
However, we have a "lightweight" clkin (special rtc32k) with a rate of
32kHz that we could potentially use as an input to produce a 32kHz
output on the PWM lines. I don't see any reason why we should not
support such special cases.
>
>
> > calculation the PWM driver is asking for a clock rate of >=2GHz.
> > We concluded that letting the common clock framework choose the best
> > possible parent (meaning: removing CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT here) can
> > be a way forward.
> > But this means that the PWM controller driver must try to find the
> > best possible parent somehow. The easiest way we came up with
> > (pseudo-code):
> > freq = NSEC_PER_SEC / period;
> > fin_freq = clk_round_rate(channel->clk, freq);
> > if (fin_freq != freq) {
> > freq = div64_u64(NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)0xffff, period);
> > fin_freq = clk_round_rate(channel->clk, freq);
> > }
> >
> > The idea is: for a requested 32kHz signal the PWM period is 30518ns.
> > The updated logic would find that there's a matching clock input and
> > use that directly. If not: use the original logic as suggested by
> > Heiner.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-amlogic/9faca2e6-b7a1-4748-7eb0-48f8064e323e@xxxxxxxxx/
>
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
