Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function

[Thierry Reding]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 05:24:52PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:44 PM Guru Das Srinagesh
> > <gurus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:42 AM Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -240,8 +240,7 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > >
> > > > >         period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > > >         c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * state->duty_cycle;
> > > > > -       do_div(c, state->period);
> > > > > -       duty_cycles = c;
> > > > > +       duty_cycles = div64_u64(c, state->period);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This change looks fine, but I wonder if the code directly above it
> > > >
> > > >         c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > >         c *= state->period;
> > > >         do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > >         period_cycles = c;
> > > >
> > > > might run into an overflow when both the clock rate and the period
> > > > are large numbers.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Seems to me like addressing this would be outside the scope of this
> > > patch series.
> > 
> > I think it should be part of the same series, addressing bugs that
> > were introduced
> > by the change to 64-bit period. If it's not getting fixed along with
> > the other regressions,
> > I fear nobody is going to go back and fix it later.
> 
> Makes sense, I agree. Would this be an acceptable fix?
> 
> Instead of multiplying c and state->period first and then dividing by
> 10^9, first divide state->period by 10^9 and then multiply the quotient
> of that division with c and assign it to period_cycles. Like so:
> 
> 	c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> 	c *= div_u64(state->period, 1000000000);
> 	period_cycles = c;
> 
> This should take care of overflow not happening because state->period is
> converted from nanoseconds to seconds early on and so becomes a small
> number.

Doesn't that mean that anything below a 1 second period will be clamped
to just 0?

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature