On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:15:31PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:28:52 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:49 AM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:44:20 +0200
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 9:57 PM Deepak R Varma <mh12gx2825@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Current implementation of the function ad7192_get_available_filter_freq
> > > > > repeats calculation of output data rate a few times. We can simplify
> > > > > these steps by refactoring out the calculation of fADC. This would also
> > > > > addresses the checkpatch warning of line exceeding 80 character.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure you did an equivalent changes. I believe in the original
> > > > code precision is better. Consider low clock frequencies when 10 bit
> > > > right shift may hide some bits of the division.
> > >
> > > Note that those bits are eventually "hidden" in the same way later,
> >
> > Even if mathematically (arithmetically) evaluation is correct, we have
> > to remember that computers are bad with floating point and especially
> > kernel, which uses integer arithmetic. That said, it's easy to get
> > off-by-one error (due to precision lost) if we do big division before
> > (not so big) multiplication.
>
> That's exactly the point I was trying to explain below: swapping steps
> in a sequence of DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() (*not* of arithmetic divisions),
> *should* not affect quantisation ("off-by-one") error.
>
> I'm not entirely sure in this case, so a quick "demonstration" in
> Python or suchlike as you suggested would be nice to have, indeed.
>
> > > despite the different sequence, due to DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() being used
> > > at every step (both before and after the change) without other
> > > operations occurring.
> >
> > By the way, where AD7192_SINC3_FILTER and AD7192_SINC4_FILTER
> > multiplications disappear and why?
>
> Those were in fact divisions (multiplications of the divisor). Overall,
> these steps are now arranged in a way closer to how they are presented
> in the datasheet mentioned here (up to "Chop Enabled" paragraph, page
> 26).
>
Thank you Andy and Stefano for your comments. Its very thoughtful. I am
not much familiar with Python so far, but thinking on evaluating your
suggestion in a sample c program. I will share the outcome shortly.
Deepak.
> --
> Stefano
>
