On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 06:50:12PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Dividing by the result of a division looses precision because the result is
> rounded twice. E.g. with clk_rate = 48000000 and period = 32760033 the
> following numbers result:
>
> rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH = 187500
> hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC, period_ns) = 3052
> rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, hz) = 6144
>
> The exact result would be 6142.5061875 and (apart from rounding) this is
> found by using a single division. As a side effect is also a tad
> cheaper to calculate.
>
> Also using clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH looses precision. Consider for
> example clk_rate = 47999999 and period = 106667:
>
> mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH, period_ns,
> NSEC_PER_SEC) = 19
>
> mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate, period_ns,
> NSEC_PER_SEC << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH) = 20
>
> (The exact result is 20.000062083332033.)
>
> With this optimizations also switch from round-closest to round-down. Given
> that the calculations were non-optimal for quite some time now which
> nobody reported as a problem, this is the opportunity to align the driver's
> behavior to the requirements of new drivers. (Note however that the
> duty_cycle calculation isn't aligned yet.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> index e5a9ffef4a71..7fc03a9ec154 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> {
> struct tegra_pwm_chip *pc = to_tegra_pwm_chip(chip);
> - unsigned long long c = duty_ns, hz;
> + unsigned long long c = duty_ns;
> unsigned long rate, required_clk_rate;
> u32 val = 0;
> int err;
> @@ -156,11 +156,9 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> pc->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
> }
>
> - rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
> -
> /* Consider precision in PWM_SCALE_WIDTH rate calculation */
> - hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC, period_ns);
> - rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, hz);
> + rate = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate, period_ns,
> + (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH);
>
> /*
> * Since the actual PWM divider is the register's frequency divider
> @@ -169,6 +167,8 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> */
> if (rate > 0)
> rate--;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
Can you elaborate on why this is needed? Previously rate == 0 was a
valid case and this could still happen with the above calculations.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
