From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit dab8f9f0fe3aada61c0eb013dcf7d3ff75a2c336 upstream.
A small prescaler is beneficial, as this improves the resolution of the
duty_cycle configuration. However if the prescaler is too small, the
maximal possible period becomes considerably smaller than the requested
value.
One situation where this goes wrong is the following: With a parent
clock rate of 208877930 Hz and max_arr = 0xffff = 65535, a request for
period = 941243 ns currently results in PSC = 1. The value for ARR is
then calculated to
ARR = 941243 * 208877930 / (1000000000 * 2) - 1 = 98301
This value is bigger than 65535 however and so doesn't fit into the
respective register field. In this particular case the PWM was
configured for a period of 313733.4806027616 ns (with ARR = 98301 &
0xffff). Even if ARR was configured to its maximal value, only period =
627495.6861167669 ns would be achievable.
Fix the calculation accordingly and adapt the comment to match the new
algorithm.
With the calculation fixed the above case results in PSC = 2 and so an
actual period of 941229.1667195285 ns.
Fixes: 8002fbeef1e4 ("pwm: stm32: Calculate prescaler with a division instead of a loop")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b4d96b79917617434a540df45f20cb5de4142f88.1718979150.git.u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c
@@ -321,17 +321,23 @@ static int stm32_pwm_config(struct stm32
* First we need to find the minimal value for prescaler such that
*
* period_ns * clkrate
- * ------------------------------
+ * ------------------------------ < max_arr + 1
* NSEC_PER_SEC * (prescaler + 1)
*
- * isn't bigger than max_arr.
+ * This equation is equivalent to
+ *
+ * period_ns * clkrate
+ * ---------------------------- < prescaler + 1
+ * NSEC_PER_SEC * (max_arr + 1)
+ *
+ * Using integer division and knowing that the right hand side is
+ * integer, this is further equivalent to
+ *
+ * (period_ns * clkrate) // (NSEC_PER_SEC * (max_arr + 1)) ≤ prescaler
*/
prescaler = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(period_ns, clk_get_rate(priv->clk),
- (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * priv->max_arr);
- if (prescaler > 0)
- prescaler -= 1;
-
+ (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * ((u64)priv->max_arr + 1));
if (prescaler > MAX_TIM_PSC)
return -EINVAL;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx are
queue-6.9/pwm-stm32-fix-error-message-to-not-describe-the-previous-error-path.patch
queue-6.9/pwm-stm32-fix-calculation-of-prescaler.patch
queue-6.9/pwm-stm32-refuse-too-small-period-requests.patch
