On 4/19/22 1:11 AM, Sean Anderson wrote:
While reviewing Dhu's patch adding ls1c300 clock support to U-Boot [1], I
noticed the following calculation, which is copied from
drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c:
ulong ls1c300_pll_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
{
unsigned int mult;
long long parent_rate;
void *base;
unsigned int val;
parent_rate = clk_get_parent_rate(clk);
base = (void *)clk->data;
val = readl(base + START_FREQ);
mult = FIELD_GET(FRAC_N, val) + FIELD_GET(M_PLL, val);
return (mult * parent_rate) / 4;
}
I would like to examine the use of M_PLL and FRAC_N to calculate the multiplier
for the PLL. The datasheet has the following to say:
START_FREQ 位 缺省值 描述
========== ===== =========== ====================================
FRAC_N 23:16 0 PLL 倍频系数的小数部分
由 PLL 倍频系数的整数部分
M_PLL 15:8 NAND_D[3:0] (理论可以达到 255，建议不要超过 100)
配置
which according to google translate means
START_FREQ Bits Default Description
========== ===== ============= ================================================
FRAC_N 23:16 0 Fractional part of the PLL multiplication factor
Depends on Integer part of PLL multiplication factor
M_PLL 15:8 NAND_D[3:0] (Theoretically it can reach 255, [but] it is
configuration recommended not to exceed 100)
So just based on this description, I would expect that the formula to be
something like
rate = parent * (255 * M_PLL + FRAC_N) / 255 / 4
However, the datasheet also gives the following formula:
rate = parent * (M_PLL + FRAC_N) / 4
which is what the Linux driver has implemented. I find this very unusual.
First, the datasheet specifically says that these fields are the integer and
fractional parts of the multiplier. Second, I think such a construct does not
easily map to traditional PLL building blocks. Implementing this formula in
hardware would likely require an adder, just to then set the threshold of a
clock divider.
I think it is much more likely that the first formula is correct. The author of
the datasheet may think of a multiplier of (say) 3.14 as
M_PLL = 3
FRAC_N = 0.14
which together sum to the correct multiplier, even though the actual value
stored in FRAC_N would be 36.
I suspect that this has slipped by unnoticed because when FRAC_N is 0, there is
no difference in the formulae. The following patch is untested, but I suspect
it will fix this issue. I would appreciate if anyone with access to the
hardware could measure the output of the PLL (or one of its derived clocks) and
determine the correct formula.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220418204519.19991-1-dhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Fixes: b4626a7f4892 ("CLK: Add Loongson1C clock support")
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c b/drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c
index 703f87622cf5..2b98a116c1ea 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/loongson1/clk-loongson1c.c
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ static unsigned long ls1x_pll_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
u32 pll, rate;
pll = __raw_readl(LS1X_CLK_PLL_FREQ);
- rate = ((pll >> 8) & 0xff) + ((pll >> 16) & 0xff);
+ rate = (pll & 0xff00) + ((pll >> 16) & 0xff);
rate *= OSC;
- rate >>= 2;
+ rate >>= 10;
return rate;
}
Since there have been no objections, can we apply this?
--Sean
