Re: [PATCH 10/14] pwm: meson: simplify the calculation of the pre-divider and count

[Neil Armstrong]

On 26/05/2019 21:41, Uwe Kleine-KÃnig wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:11:29PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>> Replace the loop to calculate the pre-divider and count with two
>> separate div64_u64() calculations. This makes the code easier to read
>> and improves the precision.
>>
>> Two example cases:
>> 1) 32.768kHz LPO clock for the SDIO wifi chip on Khadas VIM
>>    clock input: 500MHz (FCLK_DIV4)
>>    period: 30518ns
>>    duty cycle: 15259ns
>> old algorithm: pre_div=0, cnt=15259
>> new algorithm: pre_div=0, cnt=15259
>> (no difference in calculated values)
>>
>> 2) PWM LED on Khadas VIM
>>    clock input: 24MHz (XTAL)
>>    period: 7812500ns
>>    duty cycle: 7812500ns
>> old algorithm: pre_div=2, cnt=62004
>> new algorithm: pre_div=2, cnt=62500
>> Using a scope (24MHz sampling rate) shows the actual difference:
>> - old: 7753000ns, off by -59500ns (0.7616%)
>> - new: 7815000ns, off by +2500ns (0.032%)
>>
>> Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-KÃnig <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c | 25 ++++++++++---------------
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c
>> index 27915d6475e3..9afa1e5aaebf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/err.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/math64.h>
>>  #include <linux/module.h>
>>  #include <linux/of.h>
>>  #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> @@ -145,7 +146,6 @@ static int meson_pwm_calc(struct meson_pwm *meson, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>  	struct meson_pwm_channel *channel = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
>>  	unsigned int duty, period, pre_div, cnt, duty_cnt;
>>  	unsigned long fin_freq = -1;
>> -	u64 fin_ps;
>>  
>>  	duty = state->duty_cycle;
>>  	period = state->period;
>> @@ -164,24 +164,19 @@ static int meson_pwm_calc(struct meson_pwm *meson, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	dev_dbg(meson->chip.dev, "fin_freq: %lu Hz\n", fin_freq);
>> -	fin_ps = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 1000;
>> -	do_div(fin_ps, fin_freq);
>> -
>> -	/* Calc pre_div with the period */
>> -	for (pre_div = 0; pre_div <= MISC_CLK_DIV_MASK; pre_div++) {
>> -		cnt = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)period * 1000,
>> -					    fin_ps * (pre_div + 1));
>> -		dev_dbg(meson->chip.dev, "fin_ps=%llu pre_div=%u cnt=%u\n",
>> -			fin_ps, pre_div, cnt);
>> -		if (cnt <= 0xffff)
>> -			break;
>> -	}
>>  
>> +	pre_div = div64_u64(fin_freq * (u64)period, NSEC_PER_SEC * 0xffffLL);
>>  	if (pre_div > MISC_CLK_DIV_MASK) {
>>  		dev_err(meson->chip.dev, "unable to get period pre_div\n");
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	cnt = div64_u64(fin_freq * (u64)period, NSEC_PER_SEC * (pre_div + 1));
>> +	if (cnt > 0xffff) {
>> +		dev_err(meson->chip.dev, "unable to get period cnt\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
> 
> There is a slight modification in the calculation of pre_div that isn't
> catched by the examples above.
> 
> Before this patch we had:
> 
> 	pick smallest pre_div such that
> 		round_closest(period * 1000 / (round_down(1e12 / fin_freq) * (pre_div + 1)) <= 0xffff
> 
> New approach is:
> 
> 	pre_div = round_down(fin_freq * period / (1e9 * 0xffff))
> 
> An advantage of the new approach is better as it rounds only once and is
> easier.
> 
> Consider fin_freq = 99990001 and period = 655355, then the old algorithm
> picks pre_div = 1 while the new picks pre_div = 0.
> 
> I didn't continue here to check which are the resulting waveforms, I
> assume they are different though.
> 
> As there is currently no definition what is a "better" approximation for
> a given requested pair (duty_cycle, period) I cannot say if these
> changes are good or not.
> 
> And that's a pity, so I still think there should be a documented
> definition that lays down how a lowlevel driver should round. Without
> that a consumer that cares about fine differences can not rely an the
> abstraction provided by the PWM framework because each low-level driver
> might behave differently.
> 
> @Thierry: So can you please continue the discussion about this topic.
> The longer this is delayed the more patches are created and submitted
> that eventually might be wrong which is a waste of developer and
> reviewer time.
> 
> Assuming the people who care about meson don't object after reading this
> I wouldn't want to stop this patch going in though. So:
> 
> 	Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-KÃnig <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 

I don't have a strong view on this, Martin showed similar or much greater
accuracy in the 2 principal use cases of the driver, so I'm ok with it.

Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>