On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 03:28:25AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 25.04.2022 16:22, Uwe Kleine-König пишет:
> > 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 for
> > the period calculation. Given that the calculations were non-optimal for
> > quite some time now with variations in both directions which nobody
> > reported as a problem, this is the opportunity to align the driver's
> > behavior to the requirements of new drivers. This has several upsides:
> >
> > - Implementation is easier as there are no round-nearest variants of
> > mul_u64_u64_div_u64().
> > - Requests for too small periods are now consistently refused. This was
> > kind of arbitrary before, where period_ns < min_period_ns was
> > refused, but in some cases min_period_ns isn't actually implementable
> > and then values between min_period_ns and the actual minimum were
> > rounded up to the actual minimum.
> >
> > Note that the duty_cycle calculation isn't using the usual round-down
> > approach yet.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Hello,
> >
> > changes since (implicit) v1: Updated changelog to explain why rate = 0
> > is refused now.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> >
> > 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;
>
> This patch broke backlight on Asus Transformer tablets, they are now
> getting this -EINVAL. The root of the problem is under investigation.
This means that you requested a period that is smaller than the minimal
period the hardware can implement.
What is the clk rate of the PWM clk (i.e. pc->clk_rate?). Looking at
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-asus-transformer-common.dtsi I guess period is
4000000. That in turn would mean that
mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate, period_ns, (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH)
returned 0 which (with the assumption period_ns = 4000000) would imply
the clk rate is less than 64000.
I don't know the machine, but some more information would be good: What
is the actual clock rate? Can you please enable PWM_DEBUG (at compile
time) and tracing (at runtime) (i.e.
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/pwm/enable
), reproduce the problem and provide the trace (i.e.
cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace
)?
> Should we revert this patch meantime or maybe you (Uwe/Thierry) have an
> idea about what actually has gone wrong here? Thanks in advance.
I'd like to understand if the problem is indeed that the backlight
driver requests a too small period. In this case I'd prefer to adapt the
backlight device to use better pwm settings. If there is a problem in
my change, this needs to be fixed. If you provide the above data, I can
check the details.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
