Re: CAN-FD Transmitter Delay Compensation (TDC) on mcp2518fd

From: Vincent MAILHOL
Date: Mon Jun 21 2021 - 20:04:18 EST

Next message: Jason Gunthorpe: "Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy()"
Previous message: Gavin Shan: "Re: ** POTENTIAL FRAUD ALERT - RED HAT ** RE: [PATCH 0/3] mm/page_reporting: Make page reporting work on arm64 with 64KB page size"
In reply to: Vincent MAILHOL: "Re: CAN-FD Transmitter Delay Compensation (TDC) on mcp2518fd"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue. 22 Jun 2021 at 08:52, Vincent MAILHOL
<mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le Tue. 22 Jun 2021 at 03:42, Stefan Mätje <Stefan.Maetje@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 19.06.2021, 21:34 +0900 schrieb Vincent MAILHOL:
> > > On Sat. 19 Jun 2021 à 00:55, Stefan Mätje <Stefan.Maetje@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, den 18.06.2021, 23:27 +0900 schrieb Vincent MAILHOL:
> > > > > On Fri. 18 Jun 2021 at 21:44, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On 18.06.2021 20:17:51, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I just noticed in the mcp2518fd data sheet:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > bit 14-8 TDCO[6:0]: Transmitter Delay Compensation Offset bits;
> > > > > > > > > > Secondary Sample Point (SSP) Two’s complement; offset can be
> > > > > > > > > > positive,
> > > > > > > > > > zero, or negative.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 011 1111 = 63 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > 000 0000 = 0 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > 111 1111 = –64 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have you takes this into account?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have not. And I fail to understand what would be the physical
> > > > > > > > meaning if TDCO is zero or negative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mcp25xxfd family data sheet says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > SSP = TDCV + TDCO
> > > > > > > > TDCV indicates the position of the bit start on the RX pin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I understand correctly in automatic mode TDCV is measured by the CAN
> > > > > > controller and reflects the transceiver delay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. I phrased it poorly but this is what I wanted to say. It is
> > > > > the delay to propagate from the TX pin to the RX pin.
> > > > >
> > > > > If TDCO = 0 then SSP = TDCV + 0 = TDCV thus the measurement
> > > > > occurs at the bit start on the RX pin.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know why you want
> > > > > > to subtract a time from that....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rest of the relevant registers:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > TDCMOD[1:0]: Transmitter Delay Compensation Mode bits; Secondary
> > > > > > > Sample
> > > > > > > Point (SSP)
> > > > > > > 10-11 = Auto; measure delay and add TDCO.
> > > > > > > 01 = Manual; Do not measure, use TDCV + TDCO from register
> > > > > > > 00 = TDC Disabled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TDCO[6:0]: Transmitter Delay Compensation Offset bits; Secondary
> > > > > > > Sample
> > > > > > > Point (SSP)
> > > > > > > Two’s complement; offset can be positive, zero, or negative.
> > > > > > > 011 1111 = 63 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > 000 0000 = 0 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > 111 1111 = –64 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TDCV[5:0]: Transmitter Delay Compensation Value bits; Secondary Sample
> > > > > > > Point (SSP)
> > > > > > > 11 1111 = 63 x TSYSCLK
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > 00 0000 = 0 x TSYSCLK
> > > > >
> > > > > Aside from the negative TDCO, the rest is standard stuff. We can
> > > > > note the absence of the TDCF but that's not a blocker.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > If TDCO is zero, the measurement occurs on the bit start when all
> > > > > > > > the ringing occurs. That is a really bad choice to do the
> > > > > > > > measurement. If it is negative, it means that you are measuring the
> > > > > > > > previous bit o_O !?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something but I just do not get it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe you started to implement the mcp2518fd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No I've just looked into the register description.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. For your information, the ETAS ES58x FD devices do not allow
> > > > > the use of manual mode for TDCV. The microcontroller from
> > > > > Microchip supports it but ETAS firmware only exposes the
> > > > > automatic TDCV mode. So it can not be used to test what would
> > > > > occur if SSP = 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will prepare a patch to allow zero value for both TDCV and
> > > > > TDCO (I am a bit sad because I prefer the current design, but if
> > > > > ISO allows it, I feel like I have no choice). However, I refuse
> > > > > to allow the negative TDCO value unless someone is able to
> > > > > explain the rationale.
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > perhaps I can shed some light on the idea why it is a good idea to allow
> > > > negative TDC offset values. Therefore I would describe the TDC register
> > > > interface of the ESDACC CAN-FD controller of our company (see
> > > > https://esd.eu/en/products/esdacc).
> > >
> > > Thanks for joining the conversation. I am happy to receive help
> > > from more experts!
> > >
> > > > Register description of TDC-CAN-FD register (reserved bits not shown):
> > > >
> > > > bits [5..0], RO: TDC Measured (TDCmeas)
> > > > Currently measured TDC value, needs baudrate to be set and CAN
> > > > traffic
> > > >
> > > > bits [21..16], R/W: TDC offset (TDCoffs)
> > > > Depending on the selected mode (see TDC mode)
> > > > - Auto TDC, automatic mode (default)
> > > > signed offset onto measured TDC (TDCeff = TDCmeas +
> > > > TDCoffs),
> > > > interpreted as 6-bit two's complement value
> > > > - Manual TDC
> > > > absolute unsigned offset (TDCeff = TDCoffs),
> > > > interpreted as 6-bit unsigned value
> > > > - Other modes
> > > > ignored
> > > > In either case TDC offset is a number of CAN clock cycles.
> > > >
> > > > bits [31..30], R/W: TDC mode
> > > > 00 = Auto TDC
> > > > 01 = Manual TDC
> > > > 10 = reserved
> > > > 11 = TDC off
> > >
> > > First remark is that you use different naming than what I
> > > witnessed so far in other datasheets. Let me try to give the
> > > equivalences between your device and the struct can_tdc which I
> > > proposed in my patches.
> > >
> > > The Left members are ESDACC CAN-FD registers, the right members
> > > are variables from Socket CAN.
> > >
> > > ** Auto TDC **
> > > TDCoffs = struct can_tdc::tdco
> > >
> > > ** Manual TDC **
> > > TDCoffs = struct can_tdc::tdcv + struct can_tdc::tdco
> > >
> > > In both cases, TDCeff corresponds to the SSP position.
> >
> > TDCeff is not the SSP position in our implementation. see below.
> >
> > >
> > > > So in automatic mode the goal is to be able to move the real sample point
> > > > forward and(!) backward from the measured transmitter delay. Therefore the
> > > > TDCoffs is interpreted as 6-bit two's complement value to make negative
> > > > offsets
> > > > possible and to decrease the effective (used) TDCeff below the measured
> > > > value
> > > > TDCmeas.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I have understood our FPGA guy the TDCmeas value is the number of
> > > > clock cycles counted from the start of transmitting a dominant bit until the
> > > > dominant state reaches the RX pin.
> > >
> > > Your definition of TDCmeas is consistent with the definition of
> > > TDCV in socket CAN.
> > >
> > > What I miss to understand is what does it mean to subtract from
> > > that TDCmeas/TDCV value. If you subtract from it, it means that
> > > TDCeff/SSP is sampled before the signal reaches the RX
> > > pin. Correct?
> > >
> > > > During the data phase the sample point is controlled by the tseg values set
> > > > for
> > > > the data phase but is moved additionally by the number of clocks specified
> > > > by
> > > > TDCeff (or SSP in the mcp2518fd case).
> > >
> > > Here I do not follow you. The SSP, as specified in ISO 11898-1
> > > is "specified by its distance from the start of the bit
> > > time". Either you do not use TDC and the measurement is done on
> > > the SP according to the tseg values, either you do use TDC and
> > > the measurement is done on the SSP according to the TDC
> > > values. There is no mention of mixing the tseg and tdc values.
> > >
> > > P.S.: don't hesitate to invite your FPGA guy to this thread!
> >
> > I would like to do but he left off for holidays this weekend. So what I tell
> > here should be taken with a grain of salt.
> >
> > I've had a look at the ISO specificaton and the chapter on Transmitter delay
> > compensation. It was not aware of the exact definition of SSP in the ISO spec.
> > But I can explain our implementation and the relation to the ISO spec.
> >
> > In our implementation during transmit our RX-state machine runs skewed later by
> > TDCeff timequanta than the TX-state machine. This leads to the timing effects
> > described below.
> >
> > For this discussion I would define SPO (Sample Point Offset) as sum of time
> > quanta of Sync Segment, Prop_Segment and Phase1 segment set for the data phase,
> > i. e. the time quanta till Sample Point in the data phase.
>
> FYI, the sample point is already available in Socket CAN but it
> is expressed in tenth of percent. You can simply convert it back
> to time quanta doing:
> | u32 sample_point_in_tq = can_bit_time(dbt) * dbt->sample_point / 1000;
>
> (which is a formula I already used to calculate TDCO:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc6/source/drivers/net/can/dev/bittiming.c#L194)
>
> > Bittiming for a single bit in the data phase
> >
> >
> > |<-------- SPO ---------->|
> > | |
> > --+-----------------------------------+-- TX-Bit
> > \ ^
> > \
> > \
> > \
> > \
> > \
> > \
> > |<---->| TDCmeas
> > \
> > \
> > \
> > |<->| TDCoffs
> > |
> > |<-------->| TDCeff
> > |<-------- SPO ---------->|
> > | |
> > --+-----------------------------------+-- RX-Bit
> > ^
> > |<------------ SSP ----------------->|
> >
> >
> > The sketch should show the timing relations between transmitted and received
> > bits. You see in our implementation the SSP is calculated as the sum of TDCeff
> > and SPO where in turn TDCeff is the sum of TDCmeas and TDCoffs:
> >
> > SSP = TDCeff + SPO and TDCeff = TDCmeas + TDCoffs ==>
> >
> > SSP = TDCmeas + TDCoffs + SPO
> >
> > Where (all in time quanta)
> > TDCmeas = measured TDC delay like TDCV from Microchip data sheet
> > TDCoffs = our ESDACC register value for the TDC offset
> > SPO = offset to data phase sample point as defined before
> >
> > In comparision to the ISO spec the SSP offset "SSPO" from figure 24 would then
> > be for our implementation:
> >
> > SSPO = TDCoffs + SPO
> >
> > And from your description your are thinking to implement the SSPO to be struct
> > can_tdc::tdco.
> >
> > If you take "our" formula for SSPO into account you can see that a negative
> > TDCoffs can be of use because it is always offsetted by SPO. And you're right
> > that a SSPO less than zero would sample the line before the bit has arrived.
> >
> > I think the reason for this kind of implementation was that if you enable
> > automatic mode and set TDCoffs to zero it does basically "the right thing". That
> > is TDCoffs is independent from the settings done for segments in the data phase
> > because the resulting sample point offset (SPO) is cared for automatically.
>
> Thank you. What you are saying makes sense. To me, there is only
> one thing that is a bit strange in your sketch: the TDCmeas/TDCV
> does not indicate the beginning of the RX-bit.
>
> I tried to modify your sketch with my vision.
>
> |<-------- SPO ---------->|
> | |
> --+-----------------------------------+-- TX-Bit
> \ ^
> \
> \
> \
> \
> \
> \
> \
> \
> \
> |<---------->| TDCmeas (by definition, TDCmeas/TDCV is the measured delay,
> | i.e. it indicates the beginning of the RX-bit)
> |
> |<-------- SPO ---------->|
> | |<->| TDCoffs (might be negative)
> |<--------------------------->| TDCeff = SPO + TDCoffs
> | |
> --+-----------------------------------+-- RX-Bit
> ^
> |<---------------- SSP ------------------->|

Sorry, the above sketch is incorrect. This is the correct version:

|<-------- SPO ---------->|
| |
--+-----------------------------------+-- TX-Bit
\ ^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
|<---------->| TDCmeas (by definition, TDCmeas/TDCV is the measured delay,
| i.e. it indicates the beginning of the RX-bit)
|
|<->| TDCoffs (might be negative)
|<-------------->| TDCeff = TDCmeas + TDCoffs
| |<-------- SPO ---------->|
| |
--+-----------------------------------+-- RX-Bit
^
|<---------------- SSP ------------------->|

> The above is still consistent with your formulas for ESDACC CAN-FD:
>
> SSP = TDCmeas + TDCeff
> = TDCmeas + SPO + TDCoffs

I also made a mistake here. What you sent in your previous
message was correct:

SSP = TDCeff + SPO
= TDCmeas + TDCoffs + SPO

> And this is how to use Socket CAN variables to calculates yours:
>
> SPO = can_bit_time(&priv->data_bittiming) *
> priv->data_bittiming.sample_point / 1000;
>
> TDCoffs = priv->tdc.tdco - SPO
>
> So here, Socket CAN's TDCO is indeed an absolute value because it
> is an offset on TDCmeas/TDCV whereas in your implementation,
> TDCoffs is a relative value because it is an offset on
> TDCmeas/TDCV + TDCeff.
>
> > To understand the TDC configuration opportunities of the MPC2518FD more
> > thoroughly I've looked at its reference manual
> >
> >
> > https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/MCP25XXFD-CAN-FD-Controller-Module-Family-Reference-Manual-DS20005678E.pdf
> >
> > and also had a look at some example bittiming calculations done with
> >
> > https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/MCP2517FD%20Bit%20Time%20Calculations%20-%20UG.xlsx
> >
> > These documents are linked here:
> > https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/MCP2518FD
> >
> > In the Excel calculation sheet the TDCO is calculated as
> > TDCO = (DPRSEG + DPH1SEG) * DBRP
> > which makes it also dependend from the data phase prescaler. This means that
> > the recommended initial TDCO (which really seems to be SSPO in their
> > implementation) depends on (DPRSEG + DPH1SEG) which is basically the SPO as
> > defined for our implementation.
> >
> > But this also means for a user that when setting TDCO via struct can_tdc::tdco
> > the full configuration of the data bitrate must be known. Additionally changing
> > the data bitrate sample point will make the TDC settings unsuitable for the the
> > new data bitrate setting.
> >
> > What this means on how to implement a nice user interface to these parameters I
> > don't know at the moment.
>
> This should not be an issue. In the interface I am writing, I am
> forcing the user to provide both the data bitrate and the TDC
> settings at the same time.
>
> Long story short, I now understand that negative TDCO thing (and
> thanks again for your long write-up). It is just that the
> calculation is done differently. I am thinking of continuing to
> use an unsigned TDCO in the socket CAN implementation and maybe
> provide an helper function: can_tdc_get_relative_tdco() that will
> return the signed TDCO needed for the ESDACC and the
> MPC2518FD (and probably other controllers as well).
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Vincent

Next message: Jason Gunthorpe: "Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy()"
Previous message: Gavin Shan: "Re: ** POTENTIAL FRAUD ALERT - RED HAT ** RE: [PATCH 0/3] mm/page_reporting: Make page reporting work on arm64 with 64KB page size"
In reply to: Vincent MAILHOL: "Re: CAN-FD Transmitter Delay Compensation (TDC) on mcp2518fd"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]