[PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

This patchset enables NKM clocks to consider alternative parent rates
and utilize this new feature to adjust the pll-video0 clock on Allwinner
A64 (PATCH 1 and 2).

Furthermore, with this patchset pll-video0 considers rates that are
higher than the requested rate when finding the closest rate. In
consequence, higher rates are also considered by pll-video0's
descandents (PATCH 3 et. seq.).

This allows us to achieve an optimal rate for driving the board's panel.

To provide some context, the clock structure involved in this process is
as follows:
    clock                       clock type
    --------------------------------------
    pll-video0                  ccu_nm
       pll-mipi                 ccu_nkm
          tcon0                 ccu_mux
             tcon-data-clock    sun4i_dclk

The divider between tcon0 and tcon-data-clock is fixed at 4. Therefore,
in order to achieve a rate that closely matches the desired rate of the
panel, pll-mipi needs to operate at a specific rate.

Tests
=====
So far, this has been successfully tested on the A64-based Pinephone
using three different panel rates:

 1. A panel rate that can be matched exactly by pll-video0.
 2. A panel rate that requires pll-video0 to undershoot to get the
    closest rate.
 3. A panel rate that requires pll-video0 to overshoot to get the
    closest rate.

Test records:

Re 1:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 103500000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 414000000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 207000000
       hdmi-phy-clk             51750000
       hdmi                    207000000
       tcon1                   207000000
       pll-mipi                414000000
          tcon0                414000000
             tcon-data-clock   103500000

The results of the find_best calls:
[   12.345862] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346111] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346291] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346471] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346867] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1

Re 2:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 103650000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 414600000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 282666666
       hdmi-phy-clk             70666666
       hdmi                    282666666
       tcon1                   282666666
       pll-mipi                414577776
          tcon0                414577776
             tcon-data-clock   103644444

The results of the find_best calls:
[   13.638954] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414600000, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639212] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414600000, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639395] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639577] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639913] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15

Here, we consistently ask the pll-video0 for a rate that it can't
provide exactly:
 - rate=414600000: We ask the parent for 282681818 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 282666666. Here the parent undershoots.
 - rate=414577776: We ask the parent for 282666665 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 282666666. Here the parent overshoots.

So, in both cases it rounds to the nearest rate (first down, then up),
which is the intended behaviour.

Re 3:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 112266000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 449064000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 207272727
       hdmi-phy-clk             51818181
       hdmi                    207272727
       tcon1                   207272727
       pll-mipi                449090908
          tcon0                449090908
             tcon-data-clock   112272727

The results of the find_best calls:
[   13.871022] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449064000, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871277] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449064000, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871461] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871646] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.872050] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12

Here, we consistently ask the pll-video0 for a rate that it can't
provide exactly:
 - rate=449064000: We ask the parent for 207260307 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 207272727.
 - rate=449090908: We ask the parent for 207272726 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 207272727.

So, in both cases, it rounds up to the nearest rate, which is the
intended behavior.

Changes in v3:
 - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
   nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
   the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
   (PATCH 1).
 - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
   v2 (PATCH 1).
 - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
   for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
   calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
   achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
 - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
   pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
   are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
   et. seq.).
 - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Changes in V2:
 - Move optimal parent rate calculation to dedicated function
 - Choose a parent rate that does not to overshoot requested rate
 - Add comments to ccu_nkm_find_best
 - Make sure that best_parent_rate stays at original parent rate in the unlikely
   case that all combinations overshoot.

Link to V1:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230605190745.366882-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

---
Frank Oltmanns (8):
      clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 25 ++++++-----
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 +-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h     |  1 +
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h        | 30 +++++++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c        | 36 +++++++++++++---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h        | 17 ++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c        | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++-
 10 files changed, 198 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
change-id: 20230626-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-3363fc0d6e6f

Best regards,
-- 
Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>

[PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

This patchset enables NKM clocks to consider alternative parent rates
and utilize this new feature to adjust the pll-video0 clock on Allwinner
A64 (PATCH 1 and 2).

Furthermore, with this patchset pll-video0 considers rates that are
higher than the requested rate when finding the closest rate. In
consequence, higher rates are also considered by pll-video0's
descandents (PATCH 3 et. seq.).

This allows us to achieve an optimal rate for driving the board's panel.

To provide some context, the clock structure involved in this process is
as follows:
    clock                       clock type
    --------------------------------------
    pll-video0                  ccu_nm
       pll-mipi                 ccu_nkm
          tcon0                 ccu_mux
             tcon-data-clock    sun4i_dclk

The divider between tcon0 and tcon-data-clock is fixed at 4. Therefore,
in order to achieve a rate that closely matches the desired rate of the
panel, pll-mipi needs to operate at a specific rate.

Tests
=====
So far, this has been successfully tested on the A64-based Pinephone
using three different panel rates:

 1. A panel rate that can be matched exactly by pll-video0.
 2. A panel rate that requires pll-video0 to undershoot to get the
    closest rate.
 3. A panel rate that requires pll-video0 to overshoot to get the
    closest rate.

Test records:

Re 1:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 103500000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 414000000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 207000000
       hdmi-phy-clk             51750000
       hdmi                    207000000
       tcon1                   207000000
       pll-mipi                414000000
          tcon0                414000000
             tcon-data-clock   103500000

The results of the find_best calls:
[   12.345862] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346111] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346291] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346471] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, best_parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1
[   12.346867] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=414000000, best_rate=414000000, parent_rate=207000000, n=1, k=2, m=1

Re 2:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 103650000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 414600000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 282666666
       hdmi-phy-clk             70666666
       hdmi                    282666666
       tcon1                   282666666
       pll-mipi                414577776
          tcon0                414577776
             tcon-data-clock   103644444

The results of the find_best calls:
[   13.638954] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414600000, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639212] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414600000, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639395] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639577] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, best_parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15
[   13.639913] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=414577776, best_rate=414577776, parent_rate=282666666, n=11, k=2, m=15

Here, we consistently ask the pll-video0 for a rate that it can't
provide exactly:
 - rate=414600000: We ask the parent for 282681818 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 282666666. Here the parent undershoots.
 - rate=414577776: We ask the parent for 282666665 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 282666666. Here the parent overshoots.

So, in both cases it rounds to the nearest rate (first down, then up),
which is the intended behaviour.

Re 3:
-----
Panel requests tcon-data-clock of 112266000 Hz, i.e., pll-mipi needs to
run at 449064000 Hz. This results in the following clock rates:
   clock                            rate
----------------------------------------
    pll-video0                 207272727
       hdmi-phy-clk             51818181
       hdmi                    207272727
       tcon1                   207272727
       pll-mipi                449090908
          tcon0                449090908
             tcon-data-clock   112272727

The results of the find_best calls:
[   13.871022] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449064000, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871277] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449064000, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871461] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.871646] ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, best_parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12
[   13.872050] ccu_nkm_find_best: rate=449090908, best_rate=449090908, parent_rate=207272727, n=13, k=2, m=12

Here, we consistently ask the pll-video0 for a rate that it can't
provide exactly:
 - rate=449064000: We ask the parent for 207260307 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 207272727.
 - rate=449090908: We ask the parent for 207272726 (rate * m / (n * k)),
   it returns 207272727.

So, in both cases, it rounds up to the nearest rate, which is the
intended behavior.

Changes in v3:
 - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
   nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
   the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
   (PATCH 1).
 - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
   v2 (PATCH 1).
 - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
   for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
   calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
   achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
 - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
   pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
   are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
   et. seq.).
 - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Changes in V2:
 - Move optimal parent rate calculation to dedicated function
 - Choose a parent rate that does not to overshoot requested rate
 - Add comments to ccu_nkm_find_best
 - Make sure that best_parent_rate stays at original parent rate in the unlikely
   case that all combinations overshoot.

Link to V1:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230605190745.366882-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

---
Frank Oltmanns (8):
      clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate
      clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 25 ++++++-----
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 +-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h     |  1 +
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h        | 30 +++++++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c        | 36 +++++++++++++---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h        | 17 ++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c        | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++-
 10 files changed, 198 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
change-id: 20230626-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-3363fc0d6e6f

Best regards,
-- 
Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
parent rate when determining a new rate.

To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
steps for each NKM combination:
 - calculate the optimal parent rate,
 - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
 - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.

In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
algorithm as before.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/math.h>
 
 #include "ccu_gate.h"
 #include "ccu_nkm.h"
@@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
 	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
 };
 
+static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
+						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
+{
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
+	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
+
+	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
+		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
+			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
+				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+
+				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
+
+				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
+				if (tmp_rate > rate)
+					continue;
+
+				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+					best_rate = tmp_rate;
+					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
+					best_n = _n;
+					best_k = _k;
+					best_m = _m;
+				}
+			}
+		}
+	}
+
+	nkm->n = best_n;
+	nkm->k = best_k;
+	nkm->m = best_m;
+
+	*parent = best_parent_rate;
+
+	return best_rate;
+}
+
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
 {
@@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
 }
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
-					struct clk_hw *hw,
+					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,
 					unsigned long *parent_rate,
 					unsigned long rate,
 					void *data)
@@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
 
-	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	else
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
 
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nkm.min_m = 1;
 	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
 
-	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);
 

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
parent rate when determining a new rate.

To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
steps for each NKM combination:
 - calculate the optimal parent rate,
 - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
 - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.

In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
algorithm as before.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/math.h>
 
 #include "ccu_gate.h"
 #include "ccu_nkm.h"
@@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
 	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
 };
 
+static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
+						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
+{
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
+	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
+
+	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
+		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
+			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
+				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+
+				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
+
+				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
+				if (tmp_rate > rate)
+					continue;
+
+				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+					best_rate = tmp_rate;
+					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
+					best_n = _n;
+					best_k = _k;
+					best_m = _m;
+				}
+			}
+		}
+	}
+
+	nkm->n = best_n;
+	nkm->k = best_k;
+	nkm->m = best_m;
+
+	*parent = best_parent_rate;
+
+	return best_rate;
+}
+
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
 {
@@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
 }
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
-					struct clk_hw *hw,
+					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,
 					unsigned long *parent_rate,
 					unsigned long rate,
 					void *data)
@@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
 
-	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	else
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
 
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nkm.min_m = 1;
 	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
 
-	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);
 

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4385 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
> parent rate when determining a new rate.
> 
> To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
> steps for each NKM combination:
>  - calculate the optimal parent rate,
>  - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
>  - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.
> 
> In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
> algorithm as before.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/math.h>
>  
>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>  #include "ccu_nkm.h"
> @@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>  	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
>  };
>
> +static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)

The usual order in that driver (and Linux in general) would make the
clk_hw and nkm structure pointers first, and then the parent rate and
rate.

But something looks off to me: ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj takes a
pointer to the parent rate which makes sense since we're going to modify
it.

> +{
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> +	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> +
> +	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
> +		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> +			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> +				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +
> +				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> +
> +				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> +				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +					continue;
> +
> +				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +					best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
> +					best_n = _n;
> +					best_k = _k;
> +					best_m = _m;
> +				}
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	nkm->n = best_n;
> +	nkm->k = best_k;
> +	nkm->m = best_m;
> +
> +	*parent = best_parent_rate;
> +
> +	return best_rate;
> +}
> +
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)

You haven't modified ccu_nkm_find_best though, and it still takes the
parent rate value.

>  {
> @@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>  }
>  
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
> -					struct clk_hw *hw,
> +					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,

(This should be another patch)

>  					unsigned long *parent_rate,
>  					unsigned long rate,
>  					void *data)
> @@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>  
> -	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

parent_rate is a pointer, we were dereferencing it to pass its value to
ccu_nkm_find_best. All good so far.

> +	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

Still passing by value

> +	else
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);

And passing the pointer there since it takes a pointer. Still good.

>  
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>  
> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

But here, we're passing a pointer to parent_rate to ccu_nkm_find_best,
while it's still supposed to take it by value?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4385 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
> parent rate when determining a new rate.
> 
> To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
> steps for each NKM combination:
>  - calculate the optimal parent rate,
>  - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
>  - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.
> 
> In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
> algorithm as before.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/math.h>
>  
>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>  #include "ccu_nkm.h"
> @@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>  	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
>  };
>
> +static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)

The usual order in that driver (and Linux in general) would make the
clk_hw and nkm structure pointers first, and then the parent rate and
rate.

But something looks off to me: ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj takes a
pointer to the parent rate which makes sense since we're going to modify
it.

> +{
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> +	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> +
> +	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
> +		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> +			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> +				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +
> +				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> +
> +				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> +				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +					continue;
> +
> +				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +					best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
> +					best_n = _n;
> +					best_k = _k;
> +					best_m = _m;
> +				}
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	nkm->n = best_n;
> +	nkm->k = best_k;
> +	nkm->m = best_m;
> +
> +	*parent = best_parent_rate;
> +
> +	return best_rate;
> +}
> +
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)

You haven't modified ccu_nkm_find_best though, and it still takes the
parent rate value.

>  {
> @@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>  }
>  
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
> -					struct clk_hw *hw,
> +					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,

(This should be another patch)

>  					unsigned long *parent_rate,
>  					unsigned long rate,
>  					void *data)
> @@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>  
> -	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

parent_rate is a pointer, we were dereferencing it to pass its value to
ccu_nkm_find_best. All good so far.

> +	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

Still passing by value

> +	else
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);

And passing the pointer there since it takes a pointer. Still good.

>  
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>  
> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);

But here, we're passing a pointer to parent_rate to ccu_nkm_find_best,
while it's still supposed to take it by value?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 08:47:43 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
>> parent rate when determining a new rate.
>>
>> To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
>> steps for each NKM combination:
>>  - calculate the optimal parent rate,
>>  - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
>>  - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.
>>
>> In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
>> algorithm as before.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/math.h>
>>
>>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>>  #include "ccu_nkm.h"
>> @@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>>  	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
>>  };
>>
>> +static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
>> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
>
> The usual order in that driver (and Linux in general) would make the
> clk_hw and nkm structure pointers first, and then the parent rate and
> rate.

I'll address that in v4.

>
> But something looks off to me: ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj takes a
> pointer to the parent rate which makes sense since we're going to modify
> it.
>
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> +	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>> +	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>> +
>> +	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
>> +		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>> +			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>> +				unsigned long tmp_rate;
>> +
>> +				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>> +
>> +				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
>> +				if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> +					continue;
>> +
>> +				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
>> +					best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> +					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
>> +					best_n = _n;
>> +					best_k = _k;
>> +					best_m = _m;
>> +				}
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	nkm->n = best_n;
>> +	nkm->k = best_k;
>> +	nkm->m = best_m;
>> +
>> +	*parent = best_parent_rate;
>> +
>> +	return best_rate;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>>  				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
>
> You haven't modified ccu_nkm_find_best though, and it still takes the
> parent rate value.
>
>>  {
>> @@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>  }
>>
>>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>> -					struct clk_hw *hw,
>> +					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,
>
> (This should be another patch)

Ok, will do in v4.

>
>>  					unsigned long *parent_rate,
>>  					unsigned long rate,
>>  					void *data)
>> @@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>>
>> -	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> parent_rate is a pointer, we were dereferencing it to pass its value to
> ccu_nkm_find_best. All good so far.
>
>> +	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
>> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> Still passing by value
>
>> +	else
>> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
>
> And passing the pointer there since it takes a pointer. Still good.
>
>>
>>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>> @@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>>
>> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> But here, we're passing a pointer to parent_rate to ccu_nkm_find_best,
> while it's still supposed to take it by value?

Ugh. Yeah, sorry. I had that error in V2 but squashed the correction
into patch 5 instead of patch 1. I'll fix that in v4.

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 08:47:43 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> In case the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag is set, consider using a different
>> parent rate when determining a new rate.
>>
>> To find the best match for the requested rate, perform the following
>> steps for each NKM combination:
>>  - calculate the optimal parent rate,
>>  - find the best parent rate that the parent clock actually supports
>>  - use that parent rate to calculate the effective rate.
>>
>> In case the clk does not support setting the parent rate, use the same
>> algorithm as before.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> index a0978a50edae..d83843e69c25 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/math.h>
>>
>>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>>  #include "ccu_nkm.h"
>> @@ -16,6 +17,44 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>>  	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
>>  };
>>
>> +static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
>> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
>
> The usual order in that driver (and Linux in general) would make the
> clk_hw and nkm structure pointers first, and then the parent rate and
> rate.

I'll address that in v4.

>
> But something looks off to me: ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj takes a
> pointer to the parent rate which makes sense since we're going to modify
> it.
>
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> +	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>> +	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>> +
>> +	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
>> +		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>> +			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>> +				unsigned long tmp_rate;
>> +
>> +				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>> +
>> +				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
>> +				if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> +					continue;
>> +
>> +				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
>> +					best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> +					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
>> +					best_n = _n;
>> +					best_k = _k;
>> +					best_m = _m;
>> +				}
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	nkm->n = best_n;
>> +	nkm->k = best_k;
>> +	nkm->m = best_m;
>> +
>> +	*parent = best_parent_rate;
>> +
>> +	return best_rate;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>>  				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
>
> You haven't modified ccu_nkm_find_best though, and it still takes the
> parent rate value.
>
>>  {
>> @@ -106,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>  }
>>
>>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>> -					struct clk_hw *hw,
>> +					struct clk_hw *parent_hw,
>
> (This should be another patch)

Ok, will do in v4.

>
>>  					unsigned long *parent_rate,
>>  					unsigned long rate,
>>  					void *data)
>> @@ -124,7 +163,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>>
>> -	rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> parent_rate is a pointer, we were dereferencing it to pass its value to
> ccu_nkm_find_best. All good so far.
>
>> +	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
>> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> Still passing by value
>
>> +	else
>> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
>
> And passing the pointer there since it takes a pointer. Still good.
>
>>
>>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>> @@ -159,7 +201,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>>
>> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
>
> But here, we're passing a pointer to parent_rate to ccu_nkm_find_best,
> while it's still supposed to take it by value?

Ugh. Yeah, sorry. I had that error in V2 but squashed the correction
into patch 5 instead of patch 1. I'll fix that in v4.

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 2/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

The nkm clock now supports setting the parent's rate. Utilize this
option to find the optimal rate for pll-mipi.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index 41519185600a..a139a5c438d4 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -179,7 +179,8 @@ static struct ccu_nkm pll_mipi_clk = {
 	.common		= {
 		.reg		= 0x040,
 		.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT("pll-mipi", "pll-video0",
-					      &ccu_nkm_ops, CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE),
+					      &ccu_nkm_ops,
+					      CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
 	},
 };
 

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 2/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

The nkm clock now supports setting the parent's rate. Utilize this
option to find the optimal rate for pll-mipi.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index 41519185600a..a139a5c438d4 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -179,7 +179,8 @@ static struct ccu_nkm pll_mipi_clk = {
 	.common		= {
 		.reg		= 0x040,
 		.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT("pll-mipi", "pll-video0",
-					      &ccu_nkm_ops, CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE),
+					      &ccu_nkm_ops,
+					      CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
 	},
 };
 

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:21 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> The nkm clock now supports setting the parent's rate. Utilize this
> option to find the optimal rate for pll-mipi.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:21 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> The nkm clock now supports setting the parent's rate. Utilize this
> option to find the optimal rate for pll-mipi.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

The default behaviour of clocks in the sunxi-ng driver is to select a
clock rate that is closest to but less than the requested rate.

Add the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag, which can be used to allow clocks
to find the closest rate instead.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
index fbf16c6b896d..5ad219f041d5 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
 #define CCU_FEATURE_MMC_TIMING_SWITCH	BIT(6)
 #define CCU_FEATURE_SIGMA_DELTA_MOD	BIT(7)
 #define CCU_FEATURE_KEY_FIELD		BIT(8)
+#define CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE	BIT(9)
 
 /* MMC timing mode switch bit */
 #define CCU_MMC_NEW_TIMING_MODE		BIT(30)

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

The default behaviour of clocks in the sunxi-ng driver is to select a
clock rate that is closest to but less than the requested rate.

Add the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag, which can be used to allow clocks
to find the closest rate instead.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
index fbf16c6b896d..5ad219f041d5 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
 #define CCU_FEATURE_MMC_TIMING_SWITCH	BIT(6)
 #define CCU_FEATURE_SIGMA_DELTA_MOD	BIT(7)
 #define CCU_FEATURE_KEY_FIELD		BIT(8)
+#define CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE	BIT(9)
 
 /* MMC timing mode switch bit */
 #define CCU_MMC_NEW_TIMING_MODE		BIT(30)

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:22 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> The default behaviour of clocks in the sunxi-ng driver is to select a
> clock rate that is closest to but less than the requested rate.
> 
> Add the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag, which can be used to allow clocks
> to find the closest rate instead.
> 
> [ ... ]

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:22 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> The default behaviour of clocks in the sunxi-ng driver is to select a
> clock rate that is closest to but less than the requested rate.
> 
> Add the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag, which can be used to allow clocks
> to find the closest rate instead.
> 
> [ ... ]

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.

In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
function.

Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
additional flags set.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
 5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);		/* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x018,
@@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
 						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);		/* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
 					"osc24M", 0x038,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
@@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
 						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),   /* gate */
 						BIT(28),   /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);        /* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x0018,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
@@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),    /* gate */
 						BIT(28),    /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);         /* features */
 
 /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
@@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
 						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),    /* gate */
 						BIT(28),    /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);         /* features */
 
 static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
 	.enable		= BIT(31),
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/rational.h>
 
 #include "ccu_frac.h"
 #include "ccu_gate.h"
@@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 	return best_rate;
 }
 
+static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
+				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
+{
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
+
+	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
+
+	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
+
+	return best_rate;
+}
+
 static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
 {
 	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
@@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nm.min_m = 1;
 	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
 
-	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
+		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+	else
+		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
 
 	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
 	} else {
 		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
-		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
+			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+		else
+			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
 	}
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
@@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
 						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
 						 _frac_rate_0,		\
 						 _frac_rate_1,		\
-						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
+						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
+						 _features)		\
 	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
 		.enable		= _gate,				\
 		.lock		= _lock,				\
@@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
 		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
 		.common		= {					\
 			.reg		= _reg,				\
-			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
+					  _features,	\
 			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT(_name,		\
 						      _parent,		\
 						      &ccu_nm_ops,	\

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.

In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
function.

Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
additional flags set.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
 5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);		/* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x018,
@@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
 						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);		/* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
 					"osc24M", 0x038,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
@@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
 						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),   /* gate */
 						BIT(28),   /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);        /* features */
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x0018,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
@@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),    /* gate */
 						BIT(28),    /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);         /* features */
 
 /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
@@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
 						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
 						BIT(31),    /* gate */
 						BIT(28),    /* lock */
-						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
+						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
+						0);         /* features */
 
 static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
 	.enable		= BIT(31),
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/rational.h>
 
 #include "ccu_frac.h"
 #include "ccu_gate.h"
@@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 	return best_rate;
 }
 
+static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
+				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
+{
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
+
+	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
+
+	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
+
+	return best_rate;
+}
+
 static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
 {
 	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
@@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nm.min_m = 1;
 	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
 
-	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
+		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+	else
+		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
 
 	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
 	} else {
 		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
-		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
+			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
+		else
+			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
 	}
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
@@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
 						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
 						 _frac_rate_0,		\
 						 _frac_rate_1,		\
-						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
+						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
+						 _features)		\
 	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
 		.enable		= _gate,				\
 		.lock		= _lock,				\
@@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
 		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
 		.common		= {					\
 			.reg		= _reg,				\
-			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
+					  _features,	\
 			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT(_name,		\
 						      _parent,		\
 						      &ccu_nm_ops,	\

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7332 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:23PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
> closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
> requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
> effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.
> 
> In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
> ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
> function.
> 
> Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
> selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
> additional flags set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
>  5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);		/* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>  					"osc24M", 0x018,
> @@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);		/* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
>  					"osc24M", 0x038,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
>  						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),   /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),   /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);        /* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>  					"osc24M", 0x0018,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);         /* features */
>  
>  /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
> @@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);         /* features */
>  
>  static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/rational.h>
>  
>  #include "ccu_frac.h"
>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
> @@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  	return best_rate;
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
> +				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
> +{
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
> +
> +	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
> +
> +	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
> +
> +	return best_rate;
> +}
> +
>  static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
>  {
>  	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
> @@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
>  
> -	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +	else
> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);

So this ends up creating a completely different path and algo for the
"closest" case, and I'm not super comfortable with that.

I think you can simplify this a bit by creating a comparison function
that will take two rates and a set of flags and will behave differently
depending on whether CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set, like
mux_is_better_rate is doing for example.

You'll also avoid code duplication that way that can be shown a bit in
you subsequent patches.

>  
>  	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
>  	} else {
>  		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
> -		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
> +			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +		else
> +			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>  	}
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> @@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>  						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
>  						 _frac_rate_0,		\
>  						 _frac_rate_1,		\
> -						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
> +						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
> +						 _features)		\
>  	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
>  		.enable		= _gate,				\
>  		.lock		= _lock,				\
> @@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>  		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
>  		.common		= {					\
>  			.reg		= _reg,				\
> -			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
> +					  _features,	\

It's a bit odd to me that some features are set by the macro function,
and some are passed as an argument. I'm fine with either but we
shouldn't allow both.

It looks like (for NM clocks at least) we would only need the round
closest flag for pll-video0, so we could maybe just add a new variant of
the macro which will also reduce the changes in that patch.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7332 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:23PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
> closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
> requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
> effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.
> 
> In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
> ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
> function.
> 
> Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
> selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
> additional flags set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
>  5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);		/* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>  					"osc24M", 0x018,
> @@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);		/* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
>  					"osc24M", 0x038,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
>  						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),   /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),   /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);        /* features */
>  
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>  					"osc24M", 0x0018,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);         /* features */
>  
>  /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
> @@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> +						0);         /* features */
>  
>  static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/rational.h>
>  
>  #include "ccu_frac.h"
>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
> @@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  	return best_rate;
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
> +				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
> +{
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
> +
> +	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
> +
> +	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
> +
> +	return best_rate;
> +}
> +
>  static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
>  {
>  	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
> @@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
>  
> -	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +	else
> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);

So this ends up creating a completely different path and algo for the
"closest" case, and I'm not super comfortable with that.

I think you can simplify this a bit by creating a comparison function
that will take two rates and a set of flags and will behave differently
depending on whether CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set, like
mux_is_better_rate is doing for example.

You'll also avoid code duplication that way that can be shown a bit in
you subsequent patches.

>  
>  	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
>  	} else {
>  		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
> -		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
> +			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
> +		else
> +			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>  	}
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
> @@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>  						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
>  						 _frac_rate_0,		\
>  						 _frac_rate_1,		\
> -						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
> +						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
> +						 _features)		\
>  	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
>  		.enable		= _gate,				\
>  		.lock		= _lock,				\
> @@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>  		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
>  		.common		= {					\
>  			.reg		= _reg,				\
> -			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
> +					  _features,	\

It's a bit odd to me that some features are set by the macro function,
and some are passed as an argument. I'm fine with either but we
shouldn't allow both.

It looks like (for NM clocks at least) we would only need the round
closest flag for pll-video0, so we could maybe just add a new variant of
the macro which will also reduce the changes in that patch.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:24:53 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:23PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
>> closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
>> requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
>> effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.
>>
>> In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
>> ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
>> function.
>>
>> Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
>> selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
>> additional flags set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
>>  5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);		/* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x018,
>> @@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);		/* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x038,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> @@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
>>  						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),   /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),   /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);        /* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x0018,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);         /* features */
>>
>>  /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>> @@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);         /* features */
>>
>>  static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
>>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/rational.h>
>>
>>  #include "ccu_frac.h"
>>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>> @@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>>  	return best_rate;
>>  }
>>
>> +static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>> +				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
>> +
>> +	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
>> +
>> +	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
>> +
>> +	return best_rate;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
>>  {
>>  	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
>> @@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  	_nm.min_m = 1;
>>  	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
>>
>> -	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
>> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +	else
>> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>
> So this ends up creating a completely different path and algo for the
> "closest" case, and I'm not super comfortable with that.

What I like about this (and why I proposed it), is that we can use the
same functionality that is proven to work well in other clocks. So, this
would bring us closer to other (not sunxi-ng) clocks, many of which are
using the clk-fractional-divider directly. We can't do that in
sunxi-ng, because we still need to control when overshooting is fine and
when it is not fine. Other frameworks don't make that distinction.

I thougth about if it was possible to scrap most of ccu_nm and replace
it with clk-fractional-divider, but due to this limitation I did not see
a good way forward there. I see the following options:
 a. Add a flag to clk-fractional-divider to support clocks that must not
    overshoot. --> I don't think, I want to do that.
 b. Analyze if it's it's really a requirement for ccu_nm to support
    clocks that don't overshoot. --> I don't know who could / would take
    up such a task, given that the current structure is proven to work.
 c. Add a new clock ccu_fd that uses clk-fractional-divider internally
    and must only be used by clock's that allow overshooting - such as
    A64's pll-video0. --> This could work as a migration path for
    scenario b as well. But it's even more complex than what I'm
    proposing in this patch, so I'm not sure how much you'd like that.

Anyway, all of this seems rather involved and therefore, for this
patchset it makes sense to follow your proposal below.

>
> I think you can simplify this a bit by creating a comparison function
> that will take two rates and a set of flags and will behave differently
> depending on whether CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set, like
> mux_is_better_rate is doing for example.
>
> You'll also avoid code duplication that way that can be shown a bit in
> you subsequent patches.

I'll look into that.

>
>>
>>  	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
>> @@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
>>  	} else {
>>  		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
>> -		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
>> +			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +		else
>> +			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>>  	}
>>
>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> @@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>>  						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
>>  						 _frac_rate_0,		\
>>  						 _frac_rate_1,		\
>> -						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
>> +						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
>> +						 _features)		\
>>  	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
>>  		.enable		= _gate,				\
>>  		.lock		= _lock,				\
>> @@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>>  		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
>>  		.common		= {					\
>>  			.reg		= _reg,				\
>> -			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
>> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
>> +					  _features,	\
>
> It's a bit odd to me that some features are set by the macro function,
> and some are passed as an argument. I'm fine with either but we
> shouldn't allow both.
>
> It looks like (for NM clocks at least) we would only need the round
> closest flag for pll-video0, so we could maybe just add a new variant of
> the macro which will also reduce the changes in that patch.

Ok. I'll address that in v4.

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:24:53 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:23PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> Incorporate a new function, ccu_nm_find_best_closest, that selects the
>> closest possible rate instead of the closest rate that is less than the
>> requested rate. Utilizing rational_best_approximation has the additional
>> effect of boosting performance in clock rate selection.
>>
>> In cases where the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is set, use
>> ccu_nm_find_best_closest instead of the original ccu_nm_find_best
>> function.
>>
>> Extend the macro SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX to allow
>> selecting additional features and update all usages of the macro with no
>> additional flags set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c |  6 ++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c   |  3 ++-
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c  |  6 ++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h         |  6 ++++--
>>  5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> index a139a5c438d4..ebfab1fdbb96 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
>> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);		/* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x018,
>> @@ -143,7 +144,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>>  						297000000,	/* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),	/* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),	/* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);		/* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_gpu_clk, "pll-gpu",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x038,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> index bfebe8dbbe65..1e2669648a24 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-h3.c
>> @@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video_clk, "pll-video",
>>  						297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),   /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),   /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);        /* features */
>>
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>>  					"osc24M", 0x0018,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> index 31eca0d3bc1e..63907b86ce06 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun8i-r40.c
>> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
>>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);         /* features */
>>
>>  /* TODO: The result of N/M is required to be in [8, 25] range. */
>>  static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
>> @@ -169,7 +170,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video1_clk, "pll-video1",
>>  						297000000,  /* frac rate 1 */
>>  						BIT(31),    /* gate */
>>  						BIT(28),    /* lock */
>> -						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
>> +						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
>> +						0);         /* features */
>>
>>  static struct ccu_nkm pll_sata_clk = {
>>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> index c1fd11542c45..97d8d9e3255c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/rational.h>
>>
>>  #include "ccu_frac.h"
>>  #include "ccu_gate.h"
>> @@ -56,6 +57,18 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>>  	return best_rate;
>>  }
>>
>> +static unsigned long ccu_nm_find_best_closest(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>> +				      struct _ccu_nm *nm)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
>> +
>> +	rational_best_approximation(rate, parent, nm->max_n, nm->max_m, &nm->n, &nm->m);
>> +
>> +	best_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent, nm->n, nm->m);
>> +
>> +	return best_rate;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void ccu_nm_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
>>  {
>>  	struct ccu_nm *nm = hw_to_ccu_nm(hw);
>> @@ -159,7 +172,10 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  	_nm.min_m = 1;
>>  	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
>>
>> -	rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
>> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best_closest(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +	else
>> +		rate = ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>
> So this ends up creating a completely different path and algo for the
> "closest" case, and I'm not super comfortable with that.

What I like about this (and why I proposed it), is that we can use the
same functionality that is proven to work well in other clocks. So, this
would bring us closer to other (not sunxi-ng) clocks, many of which are
using the clk-fractional-divider directly. We can't do that in
sunxi-ng, because we still need to control when overshooting is fine and
when it is not fine. Other frameworks don't make that distinction.

I thougth about if it was possible to scrap most of ccu_nm and replace
it with clk-fractional-divider, but due to this limitation I did not see
a good way forward there. I see the following options:
 a. Add a flag to clk-fractional-divider to support clocks that must not
    overshoot. --> I don't think, I want to do that.
 b. Analyze if it's it's really a requirement for ccu_nm to support
    clocks that don't overshoot. --> I don't know who could / would take
    up such a task, given that the current structure is proven to work.
 c. Add a new clock ccu_fd that uses clk-fractional-divider internally
    and must only be used by clock's that allow overshooting - such as
    A64's pll-video0. --> This could work as a migration path for
    scenario b as well. But it's even more complex than what I'm
    proposing in this patch, so I'm not sure how much you'd like that.

Anyway, all of this seems rather involved and therefore, for this
patchset it makes sense to follow your proposal below.

>
> I think you can simplify this a bit by creating a comparison function
> that will take two rates and a set of flags and will behave differently
> depending on whether CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set, like
> mux_is_better_rate is doing for example.
>
> You'll also avoid code duplication that way that can be shown a bit in
> you subsequent patches.

I'll look into that.

>
>>
>>  	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>>  		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
>> @@ -210,7 +226,10 @@ static int ccu_nm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>  					   &_nm.m, &_nm.n);
>>  	} else {
>>  		ccu_sdm_helper_disable(&nm->common, &nm->sdm);
>> -		ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +		if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
>> +			ccu_nm_find_best_closest(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>> +		else
>> +			ccu_nm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
>>  	}
>>
>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nm->common.lock, flags);
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> index 2904e67f05a8..a3825c4e8d42 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.h
>> @@ -116,7 +116,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>>  						 _frac_en, _frac_sel,	\
>>  						 _frac_rate_0,		\
>>  						 _frac_rate_1,		\
>> -						 _gate, _lock, _flags)	\
>> +						 _gate, _lock, _flags,	\
>> +						 _features)		\
>>  	struct ccu_nm _struct = {					\
>>  		.enable		= _gate,				\
>>  		.lock		= _lock,				\
>> @@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ struct ccu_nm {
>>  		.max_rate	= _max_rate,				\
>>  		.common		= {					\
>>  			.reg		= _reg,				\
>> -			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL,	\
>> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |	\
>> +					  _features,	\
>
> It's a bit odd to me that some features are set by the macro function,
> and some are passed as an argument. I'm fine with either but we
> shouldn't allow both.
>
> It looks like (for NM clocks at least) we would only need the round
> closest flag for pll-video0, so we could maybe just add a new variant of
> the macro which will also reduce the changes in that patch.

Ok. I'll address that in v4.

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
set.

Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
 	}
 
 	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
-		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
+		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 		struct clk_hw *parent;
 
 		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
@@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
 			goto out;
 		}
 
-		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
-			best_rate = tmp_rate;
-			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
-			best_parent = parent;
+		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
+						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
+						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
+
+			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
+				best_rate = tmp_rate;
+				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
+				best_parent = parent;
+				best_diff = tmp_diff;
+			}
+		} else {
+			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
+				best_rate = tmp_rate;
+				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
+				best_parent = parent;
+			}
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
@@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
 };
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
-						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
+						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
+						       unsigned long features)
 {
-	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
 	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
 
@@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
 		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
 			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
 				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+				unsigned long tmp_diff;
 
 				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
 
 				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
-				if (tmp_rate > rate)
-					continue;
 
-				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
+						   rate - tmp_rate :
+						   tmp_rate - rate;
+				} else {
+					if (tmp_rate > rate)
+						continue;
+					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
+				}
+
+				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
 					best_rate = tmp_rate;
 					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
+					best_diff = tmp_diff;
 					best_n = _n;
 					best_k = _k;
 					best_m = _m;
@@ -56,9 +68,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
 }
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
-				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
+				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, unsigned long features)
 {
 	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
+	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
 	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
 
@@ -66,13 +79,23 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
 			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
 				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+				unsigned long tmp_diff;
 
 				tmp_rate = parent * _n * _k / _m;
 
-				if (tmp_rate > rate)
-					continue;
-				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
+						   rate - tmp_rate :
+						   tmp_rate - rate;
+				} else {
+					if (tmp_rate > rate)
+						continue;
+					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
+				}
+
+				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
 					best_rate = tmp_rate;
+					best_diff = tmp_diff;
 					best_n = _n;
 					best_k = _k;
 					best_m = _m;
@@ -164,9 +187,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
 		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
 
 	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
-		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
 	else
-		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw,
+							 nkm->common.features);
 
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -201,7 +225,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nkm.min_m = 1;
 	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
 
-	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);
 

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
set.

Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
 	}
 
 	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
-		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
+		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 		struct clk_hw *parent;
 
 		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
@@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
 			goto out;
 		}
 
-		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
-			best_rate = tmp_rate;
-			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
-			best_parent = parent;
+		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
+						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
+						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
+
+			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
+				best_rate = tmp_rate;
+				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
+				best_parent = parent;
+				best_diff = tmp_diff;
+			}
+		} else {
+			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
+				best_rate = tmp_rate;
+				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
+				best_parent = parent;
+			}
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
@@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
 };
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
-						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
+						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
+						       unsigned long features)
 {
-	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
+	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
 	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
 
@@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
 		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
 			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
 				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+				unsigned long tmp_diff;
 
 				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
 
 				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
-				if (tmp_rate > rate)
-					continue;
 
-				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
+						   rate - tmp_rate :
+						   tmp_rate - rate;
+				} else {
+					if (tmp_rate > rate)
+						continue;
+					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
+				}
+
+				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
 					best_rate = tmp_rate;
 					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
+					best_diff = tmp_diff;
 					best_n = _n;
 					best_k = _k;
 					best_m = _m;
@@ -56,9 +68,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
 }
 
 static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
-				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
+				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, unsigned long features)
 {
 	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
+	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
 	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
 	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
 
@@ -66,13 +79,23 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
 			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
 				unsigned long tmp_rate;
+				unsigned long tmp_diff;
 
 				tmp_rate = parent * _n * _k / _m;
 
-				if (tmp_rate > rate)
-					continue;
-				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
+				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
+					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
+						   rate - tmp_rate :
+						   tmp_rate - rate;
+				} else {
+					if (tmp_rate > rate)
+						continue;
+					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
+				}
+
+				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
 					best_rate = tmp_rate;
+					best_diff = tmp_diff;
 					best_n = _n;
 					best_k = _k;
 					best_m = _m;
@@ -164,9 +187,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
 		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
 
 	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
-		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
 	else
-		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
+		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw,
+							 nkm->common.features);
 
 	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -201,7 +225,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	_nkm.min_m = 1;
 	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
 
-	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
+	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);
 

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[kernel test robot]

Hi Frank,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Frank-Oltmanns/clk-sunxi-ng-nkm-consider-alternative-parent-rates-when-determining-rate/20230703-015726
base:   6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc%40oltmanns.dev
patch subject: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
config: riscv-rv32_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230703/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 4a5ac14ee968ff0ad5d2cc1ffa0299048db4c88a)
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230703/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:46:24: warning: variable 'tmp_diff' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized]
      46 |                                         tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
         |                                                           ^~~~~~~~
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:33:27: note: initialize the variable 'tmp_diff' to silence this warning
      33 |                                 unsigned long tmp_diff;
         |                                                       ^
         |                                                        = 0
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:93:24: warning: variable 'tmp_diff' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized]
      93 |                                         tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
         |                                                           ^~~~~~~~
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:82:27: note: initialize the variable 'tmp_diff' to silence this warning
      82 |                                 unsigned long tmp_diff;
         |                                                       ^
         |                                                        = 0
   2 warnings generated.


vim +/tmp_diff +46 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c

    19	
    20	static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
    21							       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
    22							       unsigned long features)
    23	{
    24		unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
    25		unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
    26		unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
    27		unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
    28	
    29		for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
    30			for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
    31				for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
    32					unsigned long tmp_rate;
    33					unsigned long tmp_diff;
    34	
    35					tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
    36	
    37					tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
    38	
    39					if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
    40						tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
    41							   rate - tmp_rate :
    42							   tmp_rate - rate;
    43					} else {
    44						if (tmp_rate > rate)
    45							continue;
  > 46						tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
    47					}
    48	
    49					if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
    50						best_rate = tmp_rate;
    51						best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
    52						best_diff = tmp_diff;
    53						best_n = _n;
    54						best_k = _k;
    55						best_m = _m;
    56					}
    57				}
    58			}
    59		}
    60	
    61		nkm->n = best_n;
    62		nkm->k = best_k;
    63		nkm->m = best_m;
    64	
    65		*parent = best_parent_rate;
    66	
    67		return best_rate;
    68	}
    69	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[kernel test robot]

Hi Frank,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Frank-Oltmanns/clk-sunxi-ng-nkm-consider-alternative-parent-rates-when-determining-rate/20230703-015726
base:   6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc%40oltmanns.dev
patch subject: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
config: riscv-rv32_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230703/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 4a5ac14ee968ff0ad5d2cc1ffa0299048db4c88a)
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230703/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202307030302.s1bheEun-lkp@intel.com/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:46:24: warning: variable 'tmp_diff' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized]
      46 |                                         tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
         |                                                           ^~~~~~~~
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:33:27: note: initialize the variable 'tmp_diff' to silence this warning
      33 |                                 unsigned long tmp_diff;
         |                                                       ^
         |                                                        = 0
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:93:24: warning: variable 'tmp_diff' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized]
      93 |                                         tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
         |                                                           ^~~~~~~~
   drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:82:27: note: initialize the variable 'tmp_diff' to silence this warning
      82 |                                 unsigned long tmp_diff;
         |                                                       ^
         |                                                        = 0
   2 warnings generated.


vim +/tmp_diff +46 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c

    19	
    20	static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
    21							       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
    22							       unsigned long features)
    23	{
    24		unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
    25		unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
    26		unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
    27		unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
    28	
    29		for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
    30			for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
    31				for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
    32					unsigned long tmp_rate;
    33					unsigned long tmp_diff;
    34	
    35					tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
    36	
    37					tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
    38	
    39					if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
    40						tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
    41							   rate - tmp_rate :
    42							   tmp_rate - rate;
    43					} else {
    44						if (tmp_rate > rate)
    45							continue;
  > 46						tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
    47					}
    48	
    49					if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
    50						best_rate = tmp_rate;
    51						best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
    52						best_diff = tmp_diff;
    53						best_n = _n;
    54						best_k = _k;
    55						best_m = _m;
    56					}
    57				}
    58			}
    59		}
    60	
    61		nkm->n = best_n;
    62		nkm->k = best_k;
    63		nkm->m = best_m;
    64	
    65		*parent = best_parent_rate;
    66	
    67		return best_rate;
    68	}
    69	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> set.
>
> Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  	}
>
>  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>
>  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>
> -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> -			best_parent = parent;
> +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> +
> +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>  };
>
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> +						       unsigned long features)
>  {
> -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>
> @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>
>  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>
>  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> -					continue;
>
> -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> +				} else {
> +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +						continue;
> +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;

Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.

Best regards,
  Frank

> +				}
> +
> +				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
>  					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
> +					best_diff = tmp_diff;
>  					best_n = _n;
>  					best_k = _k;
>  					best_m = _m;
> @@ -56,9 +68,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>  }
>
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
> -				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
> +				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, unsigned long features)
>  {
>  	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
> +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>
> @@ -66,13 +79,23 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>
>  				tmp_rate = parent * _n * _k / _m;
>
> -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> -					continue;
> -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> +				} else {
> +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +						continue;
> +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> +				}
> +
> +				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +					best_diff = tmp_diff;
>  					best_n = _n;
>  					best_k = _k;
>  					best_m = _m;
> @@ -164,9 +187,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>
>  	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
> -		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
>  	else
> -		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw,
> +							 nkm->common.features);
>
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -201,7 +225,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>
> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
>
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> set.
>
> Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  	}
>
>  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>
>  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>
> -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> -			best_parent = parent;
> +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> +
> +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>  };
>
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> +						       unsigned long features)
>  {
> -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>
> @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>
>  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>
>  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> -					continue;
>
> -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> +				} else {
> +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +						continue;
> +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;

Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.

Best regards,
  Frank

> +				}
> +
> +				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
>  					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
> +					best_diff = tmp_diff;
>  					best_n = _n;
>  					best_k = _k;
>  					best_m = _m;
> @@ -56,9 +68,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>  }
>
>  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
> -				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm)
> +				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, unsigned long features)
>  {
>  	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
> +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>
> @@ -66,13 +79,23 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
>  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>
>  				tmp_rate = parent * _n * _k / _m;
>
> -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> -					continue;
> -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> +				} else {
> +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> +						continue;
> +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> +				}
> +
> +				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +					best_diff = tmp_diff;
>  					best_n = _n;
>  					best_k = _k;
>  					best_m = _m;
> @@ -164,9 +187,10 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
>  		rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div;
>
>  	if (!clk_hw_can_set_rate_parent(&nkm->common.hw))
> -		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
>  	else
> -		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw);
> +		rate = ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, parent_hw,
> +							 nkm->common.features);
>
>  	if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
>  		rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div;
> @@ -201,7 +225,7 @@ static int ccu_nkm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	_nkm.min_m = 1;
>  	_nkm.max_m = nkm->m.max ?: 1 << nkm->m.width;
>
> -	ccu_nkm_find_best(&parent_rate, rate, &_nkm);
> +	ccu_nkm_find_best(parent_rate, rate, &_nkm, nkm->common.features);
>
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(nkm->common.lock, flags);

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4335 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> > set.
> >
> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >  	}
> >
> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
> >
> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >  			goto out;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > -			best_parent = parent;
> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> > +
> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > +				best_parent = parent;
> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> > +			}
> > +		} else {
> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > +				best_parent = parent;
> > +			}
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
> >  };
> >
> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> > +						       unsigned long features)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> >
> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
> >
> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> >
> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> > -					continue;
> >
> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> > +				} else {
> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> > +						continue;
> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> 
> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.

While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
clocks.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4335 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> > set.
> >
> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >  	}
> >
> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
> >
> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >  			goto out;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > -			best_parent = parent;
> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> > +
> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > +				best_parent = parent;
> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> > +			}
> > +		} else {
> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> > +				best_parent = parent;
> > +			}
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
> >  };
> >
> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> > +						       unsigned long features)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> >
> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
> >
> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> >
> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> > -					continue;
> >
> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> > +				} else {
> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> > +						continue;
> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> 
> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.

While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
clocks.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:25:59 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
>> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
>> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
>> > set.
>> >
>> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>> >  	}
>> >
>> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
>> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
>> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>> >
>> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
>> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>> >  			goto out;
>> >  		}
>> >
>> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
>> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > -			best_parent = parent;
>> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
>> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
>> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
>> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
>> > +
>> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > +				best_parent = parent;
>> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
>> > +			}
>> > +		} else {
>> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
>> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > +				best_parent = parent;
>> > +			}
>> >  		}
>> >  	}
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>> >  };
>> >
>> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
>> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
>> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
>> > +						       unsigned long features)
>> >  {
>> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>> >
>> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
>> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>> >
>> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>> >
>> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
>> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> > -					continue;
>> >
>> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
>> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
>> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
>> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
>> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
>> > +				} else {
>> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> > +						continue;
>> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
>>
>> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
>> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
>> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
>> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
>> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
>> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.
>
> While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
> infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
> clocks.

I think, clk_test.c provides a good blueprint. I tried to do that for
clk-fractional-divider [1], but Stephen wanted to go a different route,
so I dropped it. You could look at clk_fd_test_init() in [1]. A similar
approach might work for the sunxi-ng clocks. I don't see any real
blockers, but maybe that's me being naive.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230614185521.477924-3-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Best regards,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:25:59 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
>> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
>> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
>> > set.
>> >
>> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>> >  	}
>> >
>> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
>> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
>> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>> >
>> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
>> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>> >  			goto out;
>> >  		}
>> >
>> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
>> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > -			best_parent = parent;
>> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
>> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
>> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
>> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
>> > +
>> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
>> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > +				best_parent = parent;
>> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
>> > +			}
>> > +		} else {
>> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
>> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
>> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
>> > +				best_parent = parent;
>> > +			}
>> >  		}
>> >  	}
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
>> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
>> >  };
>> >
>> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
>> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
>> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
>> > +						       unsigned long features)
>> >  {
>> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
>> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
>> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
>> >
>> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
>> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
>> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
>> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
>> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
>> >
>> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
>> >
>> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
>> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> > -					continue;
>> >
>> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
>> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
>> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
>> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
>> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
>> > +				} else {
>> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
>> > +						continue;
>> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
>>
>> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
>> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
>> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
>> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
>> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
>> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.
>
> While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
> infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
> clocks.

I think, clk_test.c provides a good blueprint. I tried to do that for
clk-fractional-divider [1], but Stephen wanted to go a different route,
so I dropped it. You could look at clk_fd_test_init() in [1]. A similar
approach might work for the sunxi-ng clocks. I don't see any real
blockers, but maybe that's me being naive.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230614185521.477924-3-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Best regards,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5561 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-03 at 09:25:59 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> >> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> >> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> >> > set.
> >> >
> >> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
> >> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >> >  	}
> >> >
> >> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> >> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> >> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
> >> >
> >> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> >> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >> >  			goto out;
> >> >  		}
> >> >
> >> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > -			best_parent = parent;
> >> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> >> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> >> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> >> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> >> > +
> >> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> >> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent = parent;
> >> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> >> > +			}
> >> > +		} else {
> >> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent = parent;
> >> > +			}
> >> >  		}
> >> >  	}
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
> >> >  };
> >> >
> >> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> >> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> >> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> >> > +						       unsigned long features)
> >> >  {
> >> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> >> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> >> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> >> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> >> >
> >> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
> >> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> >> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> >> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> >> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
> >> >
> >> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> >> >
> >> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> >> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> >> > -					continue;
> >> >
> >> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> >> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> >> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> >> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> >> > +				} else {
> >> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> >> > +						continue;
> >> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> >>
> >> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
> >> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
> >> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
> >> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
> >> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
> >> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.
> >
> > While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
> > infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
> > clocks.
> 
> I think, clk_test.c provides a good blueprint. I tried to do that for
> clk-fractional-divider [1], but Stephen wanted to go a different route,
> so I dropped it. You could look at clk_fd_test_init() in [1]. A similar
> approach might work for the sunxi-ng clocks. I don't see any real
> blockers, but maybe that's me being naive.

The main issue will be probing and mocking. Those clocks are meant to be
probed through the device tree and expect to have underlying registers
accessible.

We would need some way to mock / prevent any register access, while
still registering a clock with its device tree node, parent, etc. for
the tests to be meaningful. And that's not going to be an easy thing to
do :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5561 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-03 at 09:25:59 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-07-02 at 19:55:24 +0200, Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> wrote:
> >> > When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> >> > higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> >> > set.
> >> >
> >> > Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
> >> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> >  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >> >  	}
> >> >
> >> >  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> >> > -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> >> > +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >> >  		struct clk_hw *parent;
> >> >
> >> >  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> >> > @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
> >> >  			goto out;
> >> >  		}
> >> >
> >> > -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > -			best_parent = parent;
> >> > +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> >> > +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> >> > +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> >> > +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> >> > +
> >> > +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> >> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent = parent;
> >> > +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> >> > +			}
> >> > +		} else {
> >> > +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> >> > +				best_parent = parent;
> >> > +			}
> >> >  		}
> >> >  	}
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > index d83843e69c25..36d9e987e4d8 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
> >> > @@ -18,9 +18,11 @@ struct _ccu_nkm {
> >> >  };
> >> >
> >> >  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
> >> > -						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw)
> >> > +						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
> >> > +						       unsigned long features)
> >> >  {
> >> > -	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent;
> >> > +	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
> >> > +	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
> >> >  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
> >> >  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
> >> >
> >> > @@ -28,16 +30,26 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, un
> >> >  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
> >> >  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
> >> >  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
> >> > +				unsigned long tmp_diff;
> >> >
> >> >  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
> >> >
> >> >  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
> >> > -				if (tmp_rate > rate)
> >> > -					continue;
> >> >
> >> > -				if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) {
> >> > +				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> >> > +					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
> >> > +						   rate - tmp_rate :
> >> > +						   tmp_rate - rate;
> >> > +				} else {
> >> > +					if (tmp_rate > rate)
> >> > +						continue;
> >> > +					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
> >>
> >> Sorry, this should of course be tmp_diff = rate - tmp_rate. I'll fix
> >> that in v4. Also I'll do tests on my phone where
> >> CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is not set (i.e., without PATCH 8), so see if
> >> it replicates the old behaviour. I'll also look into adding kunit tests,
> >> so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
> >> I'll ask here for advise, if/when I encounter obstacles.
> >
> > While this would obviously be great, I don't think we have the
> > infrastructure just yet to allow to easily add kunit tests for entire
> > clocks.
> 
> I think, clk_test.c provides a good blueprint. I tried to do that for
> clk-fractional-divider [1], but Stephen wanted to go a different route,
> so I dropped it. You could look at clk_fd_test_init() in [1]. A similar
> approach might work for the sunxi-ng clocks. I don't see any real
> blockers, but maybe that's me being naive.

The main issue will be probing and mocking. Those clocks are meant to be
probed through the device tree and expect to have underlying registers
accessible.

We would need some way to mock / prevent any register access, while
still registering a clock with its device tree node, parent, etc. for
the tests to be meaningful. And that's not going to be an easy thing to
do :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2623 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:24PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> set.
> 
> Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  	}
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>  
>  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>  
> -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> -			best_parent = parent;
> +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> +
> +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}

Like I said in the previous patch, I think we could do something like:

bool ccu_is_better_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
     			unsigned long target_rate,
			unsigned long current_rate,
			unsigned long best_rate)
{
	if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
		return abs(current_rate - target_rate) < abs(best_rate - target_rate);

	return current_rate <= target_rate && current_rate > best_rate;
}

Then, the code above would look like:

if (ccu_is_better_rate(common, req->rate, tmp_rate, best_rate)) {
	best_rate = tmp_rate;
	best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
	best_parent = parent;
}

It's simpler, and we can share it easily between drivers.
Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2623 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:24PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is
> set.
> 
> Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 1d557e323169..8594d6a4addd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  	}
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < clk_hw_get_num_parents(hw); i++) {
> -		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate;
> +		unsigned long tmp_rate, parent_rate, best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
>  		struct clk_hw *parent;
>  
>  		parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
> @@ -139,10 +139,23 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>  
> -		if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> -			best_rate = tmp_rate;
> -			best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> -			best_parent = parent;
> +		if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
> +			unsigned long tmp_diff = req->rate > tmp_rate ?
> +						 req->rate - tmp_rate :
> +						 tmp_rate - req->rate;
> +
> +			if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +				best_diff = tmp_diff;
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) {
> +				best_rate = tmp_rate;
> +				best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
> +				best_parent = parent;
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}

Like I said in the previous patch, I think we could do something like:

bool ccu_is_better_rate(struct ccu_common *common,
     			unsigned long target_rate,
			unsigned long current_rate,
			unsigned long best_rate)
{
	if (common->features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE)
		return abs(current_rate - target_rate) < abs(best_rate - target_rate);

	return current_rate <= target_rate && current_rate > best_rate;
}

Then, the code above would look like:

if (ccu_is_better_rate(common, req->rate, tmp_rate, best_rate)) {
	best_rate = tmp_rate;
	best_parent_rate = parent_rate;
	best_parent = parent;
}

It's simpler, and we can share it easily between drivers.
Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
structure.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
@@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
 					   parent_rate);
 }
 
+const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
+	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
+	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
+	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
+
+	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
+	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
+
+	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
+	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
+};
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
+
 const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
 	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
 	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
@@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
 	struct ccu_common	common;
 };
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
+				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
+				     _flags)				\
+	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
+		.enable	= _gate,					\
+		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
+		.common	= {						\
+			.reg		= _reg,				\
+			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
+							      _parents, \
+							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
+							      _flags),	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
+		}							\
+	}
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
 				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
 				     _flags)				\
@@ -113,6 +129,7 @@ static inline struct ccu_mux *hw_to_ccu_mux(struct clk_hw *hw)
 }
 
 extern const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops;
+extern const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops;
 
 unsigned long ccu_mux_helper_apply_prediv(struct ccu_common *common,
 					  struct ccu_mux_internal *cm,

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
structure.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
@@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
 					   parent_rate);
 }
 
+const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
+	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
+	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
+	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
+
+	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
+	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
+
+	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
+	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
+};
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
+
 const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
 	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
 	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
@@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
 	struct ccu_common	common;
 };
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
+				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
+				     _flags)				\
+	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
+		.enable	= _gate,					\
+		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
+		.common	= {						\
+			.reg		= _reg,				\
+			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
+							      _parents, \
+							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
+							      _flags),	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
+		}							\
+	}
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
 				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
 				     _flags)				\
@@ -113,6 +129,7 @@ static inline struct ccu_mux *hw_to_ccu_mux(struct clk_hw *hw)
 }
 
 extern const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops;
+extern const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops;
 
 unsigned long ccu_mux_helper_apply_prediv(struct ccu_common *common,
 					  struct ccu_mux_internal *cm,

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3135 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
> structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>  					   parent_rate);
>  }
>  
> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
> +
> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
> +
> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
> +

This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
set of clk_ops as well?

I think we should create our own wrapper here around
__clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
__clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
the proper flags set for our clock.

The former is probably slightly simpler.

>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
>  	struct ccu_common	common;
>  };
>  
> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
> +				     _flags)				\
> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
> +		.common	= {						\
> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
> +							      _parents, \
> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
> +							      _flags),	\
> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
> +		}							\
> +	}
> +

I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.

Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
modifying the existing one.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3135 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
> structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>  					   parent_rate);
>  }
>  
> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
> +
> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
> +
> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
> +

This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
set of clk_ops as well?

I think we should create our own wrapper here around
__clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
__clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
the proper flags set for our clock.

The former is probably slightly simpler.

>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
>  	struct ccu_common	common;
>  };
>  
> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
> +				     _flags)				\
> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
> +		.common	= {						\
> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
> +							      _parents, \
> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
> +							      _flags),	\
> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
> +		}							\
> +	}
> +

I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.

Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
modifying the existing one.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:38:48 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
>> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
>> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
>> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
>> structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>  					   parent_rate);
>>  }
>>
>> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
>> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
>> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
>> +
>> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
>> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
>> +
>> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
>> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
>> +};
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
>> +
>
> This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
> them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
> set of clk_ops as well?
>
> I think we should create our own wrapper here around
> __clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
> __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
> on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
> the proper flags set for our clock.
>
> The former is probably slightly simpler.

Ok, I will address that in v4.

>
>>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
>>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
>>  	struct ccu_common	common;
>>  };
>>
>> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
>> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
>> +				     _flags)				\
>> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
>> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
>> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
>> +		.common	= {						\
>> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
>> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
>> +							      _parents, \
>> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
>> +							      _flags),	\
>> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
>> +		}							\
>> +	}
>> +
>
> I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
> already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
> as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.
>
> Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
> did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
> modifying the existing one.

Ok. Just to be clear: What I did in this patch is fine and I should use
the same approach for NM. Did I get that right?

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:38:48 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
>> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
>> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
>> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
>> structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
>> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>  					   parent_rate);
>>  }
>>
>> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
>> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
>> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
>> +
>> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
>> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
>> +
>> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
>> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
>> +};
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
>> +
>
> This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
> them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
> set of clk_ops as well?
>
> I think we should create our own wrapper here around
> __clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
> __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
> on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
> the proper flags set for our clock.
>
> The former is probably slightly simpler.

Ok, I will address that in v4.

>
>>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
>>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
>>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
>> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
>>  	struct ccu_common	common;
>>  };
>>
>> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
>> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
>> +				     _flags)				\
>> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
>> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
>> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
>> +		.common	= {						\
>> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
>> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
>> +							      _parents, \
>> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
>> +							      _flags),	\
>> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
>> +		}							\
>> +	}
>> +
>
> I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
> already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
> as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.
>
> Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
> did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
> modifying the existing one.

Ok. Just to be clear: What I did in this patch is fine and I should use
the same approach for NM. Did I get that right?

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3852 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:17:24AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-03 at 09:38:48 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> >> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
> >> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
> >> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
> >> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
> >> structure.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >>  					   parent_rate);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
> >> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> >> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> >> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
> >> +
> >> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
> >> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
> >> +
> >> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
> >> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
> >> +};
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
> >> +
> >
> > This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
> > them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
> > set of clk_ops as well?
> >
> > I think we should create our own wrapper here around
> > __clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
> > __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
> > on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
> > the proper flags set for our clock.
> >
> > The former is probably slightly simpler.
> 
> Ok, I will address that in v4.
> 
> >
> >>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
> >>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> >>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
> >>  	struct ccu_common	common;
> >>  };
> >>
> >> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
> >> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
> >> +				     _flags)				\
> >> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
> >> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
> >> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
> >> +		.common	= {						\
> >> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
> >> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
> >> +							      _parents, \
> >> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
> >> +							      _flags),	\
> >> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
> >> +		}							\
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >
> > I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
> > already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
> > as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.
> >
> > Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
> > did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
> > modifying the existing one.
> 
> Ok. Just to be clear: What I did in this patch is fine and I should use
> the same approach for NM. Did I get that right?

Yes. Leave the NM macro as it is, and add a new _CLOSEST variant that
sets the flag like you did there.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3852 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:17:24AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> 
> On 2023-07-03 at 09:38:48 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:25PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> >> When finding the best rate for a mux clock, consider rates that are
> >> higher than the requested rate by introducing a new clk_ops structure
> >> that uses the existing __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest function.
> >> Furthermore introduce an initialization macro that uses this new
> >> structure.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> index 8594d6a4addd..49a592bdeacf 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c
> >> @@ -264,6 +264,19 @@ static unsigned long ccu_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >>  					   parent_rate);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_closest_ops = {
> >> +	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> >> +	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> >> +	.is_enabled	= ccu_mux_is_enabled,
> >> +
> >> +	.get_parent	= ccu_mux_get_parent,
> >> +	.set_parent	= ccu_mux_set_parent,
> >> +
> >> +	.determine_rate	= __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest,
> >> +	.recalc_rate	= ccu_mux_recalc_rate,
> >> +};
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(ccu_mux_closest_ops, SUNXI_CCU);
> >> +
> >
> > This is also a bit inconsistent with the other clocks: most (all?) of
> > them will simply handle this through a flag, but this one requires a new
> > set of clk_ops as well?
> >
> > I think we should create our own wrapper here around
> > __clk_mux_determine_rate and either call
> > __clk_mux_determine_rate_closest or __clk_mux_determine_rate depending
> > on the state of the flags, or call __clk_mux_determine_rate_flags with
> > the proper flags set for our clock.
> >
> > The former is probably slightly simpler.
> 
> Ok, I will address that in v4.
> 
> >
> >>  const struct clk_ops ccu_mux_ops = {
> >>  	.disable	= ccu_mux_disable,
> >>  	.enable		= ccu_mux_enable,
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> index 2c1811a445b0..c4ee14e43719 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.h
> >> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ struct ccu_mux {
> >>  	struct ccu_common	common;
> >>  };
> >>
> >> +#define SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents, _table,	\
> >> +				     _reg, _shift, _width, _gate,	\
> >> +				     _flags)				\
> >> +	struct ccu_mux _struct = {					\
> >> +		.enable	= _gate,					\
> >> +		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_shift, _width, _table),	\
> >> +		.common	= {						\
> >> +			.reg		= _reg,				\
> >> +			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
> >> +							      _parents, \
> >> +							      &ccu_mux_closest_ops, \
> >> +							      _flags),	\
> >> +			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
> >> +		}							\
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >
> > I'm fine with that one, but like we discussed on the NM (I think?) patch
> > already, this creates some clocks and macros that will use the feature
> > as a flag, and some will encode it into their name.
> >
> > Given that we need it here too, I'm really inclined to prefer what you
> > did there, and thus create a new macro for pll-video0 instead of
> > modifying the existing one.
> 
> Ok. Just to be clear: What I did in this patch is fine and I should use
> the same approach for NM. Did I get that right?

Yes. Leave the NM macro as it is, and add a new _CLOSEST variant that
sets the flag like you did there.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 7/8] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

Add initalization macros for divisor clocks with mux
(SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX) to support finding the closest rate. This clock
type requires the appropriate flags to be set in the .common structure
(for the mux part of the clock) and the .div part.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
index 948e2b0c0c3b..90d49ee8e0cc 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
@@ -143,6 +143,26 @@ struct ccu_div {
 		},							\
 	}
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name,		\
+						_parents, _table,	\
+						_reg,			\
+						_mshift, _mwidth,	\
+						_muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
+						_gate, _flags)		\
+	struct ccu_div _struct = {					\
+		.enable	= _gate,					\
+		.div	= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(_mshift, _mwidth, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST), \
+		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_muxshift, _muxwidth, _table), \
+		.common	= {						\
+			.reg		= _reg,				\
+			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
+							      _parents, \
+							      &ccu_div_ops, \
+							      _flags),	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
+		},							\
+	}
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(_struct, _name, _parents, _reg,	\
 				  _mshift, _mwidth, _muxshift, _muxwidth, \
 				  _gate, _flags)			\
@@ -152,6 +172,16 @@ struct ccu_div {
 					_muxshift, _muxwidth,		\
 					_gate, _flags)
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents,	\
+					  _reg, _mshift, _mwidth,	\
+					  _muxshift, _muxwidth,		\
+					  _gate, _flags)		\
+	SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name,		\
+						_parents, NULL,		\
+						_reg, _mshift, _mwidth,	\
+						_muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
+						_gate, _flags)
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX(_struct, _name, _parents, _reg,		\
 			     _mshift, _mwidth, _muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
 			     _flags)					\

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 7/8] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

Add initalization macros for divisor clocks with mux
(SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX) to support finding the closest rate. This clock
type requires the appropriate flags to be set in the .common structure
(for the mux part of the clock) and the .div part.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
index 948e2b0c0c3b..90d49ee8e0cc 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_div.h
@@ -143,6 +143,26 @@ struct ccu_div {
 		},							\
 	}
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name,		\
+						_parents, _table,	\
+						_reg,			\
+						_mshift, _mwidth,	\
+						_muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
+						_gate, _flags)		\
+	struct ccu_div _struct = {					\
+		.enable	= _gate,					\
+		.div	= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(_mshift, _mwidth, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST), \
+		.mux	= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(_muxshift, _muxwidth, _table), \
+		.common	= {						\
+			.reg		= _reg,				\
+			.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS(_name,	\
+							      _parents, \
+							      &ccu_div_ops, \
+							      _flags),	\
+			.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,	\
+		},							\
+	}
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(_struct, _name, _parents, _reg,	\
 				  _mshift, _mwidth, _muxshift, _muxwidth, \
 				  _gate, _flags)			\
@@ -152,6 +172,16 @@ struct ccu_div {
 					_muxshift, _muxwidth,		\
 					_gate, _flags)
 
+#define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name, _parents,	\
+					  _reg, _mshift, _mwidth,	\
+					  _muxshift, _muxwidth,		\
+					  _gate, _flags)		\
+	SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(_struct, _name,		\
+						_parents, NULL,		\
+						_reg, _mshift, _mwidth,	\
+						_muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
+						_gate, _flags)
+
 #define SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX(_struct, _name, _parents, _reg,		\
 			     _mshift, _mwidth, _muxshift, _muxwidth,	\
 			     _flags)					\

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:26 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Add initalization macros for divisor clocks with mux
> (SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX) to support finding the closest rate. This clock
> type requires the appropriate flags to be set in the .common structure
> (for the mux part of the clock) and the .div part.
> 
> 
> [ ... ]

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Support finding closest rate

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:55:26 +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Add initalization macros for divisor clocks with mux
> (SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX) to support finding the closest rate. This clock
> type requires the appropriate flags to be set in the .common structure
> (for the mux part of the clock) and the .div part.
> 
> 
> [ ... ]

Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Thanks!
Maxime

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Frank Oltmanns]

Selecting the closest rate for pll-video0 instead of the closest rate
that is less than the requested rate has no downside for this clock,
while allowing for selecting a more suitable rate, e.g. for the
connected panels.

Furthermore, the algorithm that sets an NKM clock's parent benefits from
the closest rate. Without it, the NKM clock's rate might drift away from
the requested rate in the multiple successive calls to
ccu_nkm_determine_rate that the clk framework performs when setting a
clock rate.

Therefore, configure pll-video0 and, in consequence, all of its
descendents to select the closest rate.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index ebfab1fdbb96..016432ff3bde 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
 						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
-						0);		/* features */
+						CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x018,
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ static struct ccu_nkm pll_mipi_clk = {
 		.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT("pll-mipi", "pll-video0",
 					      &ccu_nkm_ops,
 					      CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
+		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
 	},
 };
 
@@ -533,7 +534,7 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(de_clk, "de", de_parents,
 
 static const char * const tcon0_parents[] = { "pll-mipi", "pll-video0-2x" };
 static const u8 tcon0_table[] = { 0, 2, };
-static SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE(tcon0_clk, "tcon0", tcon0_parents,
+static SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(tcon0_clk, "tcon0", tcon0_parents,
 				     tcon0_table, 0x118, 24, 3, BIT(31),
 				     CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
@@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
 static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
 static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
 	.enable		= BIT(31),
-	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
+	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
 	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
 	.common		= {
 		.reg		= 0x11c,
@@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
 						      tcon1_parents,
 						      &ccu_div_ops,
 						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
+		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
 	},
 };
 
@@ -580,8 +582,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_GATE(avs_clk,		"avs",		"osc24M",
 		      0x144, BIT(31), 0);
 
 static const char * const hdmi_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
-static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(hdmi_clk, "hdmi", hdmi_parents,
-				 0x150, 0, 4, 24, 2, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
+static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE_CLOSEST(hdmi_clk, "hdmi", hdmi_parents,
+					 0x150, 0, 4, 24, 2, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_GATE(hdmi_ddc_clk,	"hdmi-ddc",	"osc24M",
 		      0x154, BIT(31), 0);
@@ -593,9 +595,9 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(mbus_clk, "mbus", mbus_parents,
 
 static const char * const dsi_dphy_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-periph0" };
 static const u8 dsi_dphy_table[] = { 0, 2, };
-static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE(dsi_dphy_clk, "dsi-dphy",
-				       dsi_dphy_parents, dsi_dphy_table,
-				       0x168, 0, 4, 8, 2, BIT(15), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
+static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(dsi_dphy_clk, "dsi-dphy",
+					       dsi_dphy_parents, dsi_dphy_table,
+					       0x168, 0, 4, 8, 2, BIT(15), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_GATE(gpu_clk, "gpu", "pll-gpu",
 			     0x1a0, 0, 3, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Frank Oltmanns]

Selecting the closest rate for pll-video0 instead of the closest rate
that is less than the requested rate has no downside for this clock,
while allowing for selecting a more suitable rate, e.g. for the
connected panels.

Furthermore, the algorithm that sets an NKM clock's parent benefits from
the closest rate. Without it, the NKM clock's rate might drift away from
the requested rate in the multiple successive calls to
ccu_nkm_determine_rate that the clk framework performs when setting a
clock rate.

Therefore, configure pll-video0 and, in consequence, all of its
descendents to select the closest rate.

Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
index ebfab1fdbb96..016432ff3bde 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
 						BIT(31),	/* gate */
 						BIT(28),	/* lock */
 						CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
-						0);		/* features */
+						CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
 					"osc24M", 0x018,
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ static struct ccu_nkm pll_mipi_clk = {
 		.hw.init	= CLK_HW_INIT("pll-mipi", "pll-video0",
 					      &ccu_nkm_ops,
 					      CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
+		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
 	},
 };
 
@@ -533,7 +534,7 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(de_clk, "de", de_parents,
 
 static const char * const tcon0_parents[] = { "pll-mipi", "pll-video0-2x" };
 static const u8 tcon0_table[] = { 0, 2, };
-static SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE(tcon0_clk, "tcon0", tcon0_parents,
+static SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE_WITH_GATE_CLOSEST(tcon0_clk, "tcon0", tcon0_parents,
 				     tcon0_table, 0x118, 24, 3, BIT(31),
 				     CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
@@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
 static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
 static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
 	.enable		= BIT(31),
-	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
+	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
 	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
 	.common		= {
 		.reg		= 0x11c,
@@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
 						      tcon1_parents,
 						      &ccu_div_ops,
 						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
+		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
 	},
 };
 
@@ -580,8 +582,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_GATE(avs_clk,		"avs",		"osc24M",
 		      0x144, BIT(31), 0);
 
 static const char * const hdmi_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
-static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(hdmi_clk, "hdmi", hdmi_parents,
-				 0x150, 0, 4, 24, 2, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
+static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE_CLOSEST(hdmi_clk, "hdmi", hdmi_parents,
+					 0x150, 0, 4, 24, 2, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_GATE(hdmi_ddc_clk,	"hdmi-ddc",	"osc24M",
 		      0x154, BIT(31), 0);
@@ -593,9 +595,9 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_GATE(mbus_clk, "mbus", mbus_parents,
 
 static const char * const dsi_dphy_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-periph0" };
 static const u8 dsi_dphy_table[] = { 0, 2, };
-static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE(dsi_dphy_clk, "dsi-dphy",
-				       dsi_dphy_parents, dsi_dphy_table,
-				       0x168, 0, 4, 8, 2, BIT(15), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
+static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST(dsi_dphy_clk, "dsi-dphy",
+					       dsi_dphy_parents, dsi_dphy_table,
+					       0x168, 0, 4, 8, 2, BIT(15), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
 
 static SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_GATE(gpu_clk, "gpu", "pll-gpu",
 			     0x1a0, 0, 3, BIT(31), CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);

-- 
2.41.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
>  static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
>  static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
> -	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
> +	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
>  	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
>  	.common		= {
>  		.reg		= 0x11c,
> @@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>  						      tcon1_parents,
>  						      &ccu_div_ops,
>  						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
> +		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
>  	},
>  };

I'm not super comfortable with having to set it twice for dividers (or
composite clocks). Could we set CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST automatically
if CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set?

I'm guessing we would need it for muxes as well?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
>  static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
>  static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
> -	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
> +	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
>  	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
>  	.common		= {
>  		.reg		= 0x11c,
> @@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>  						      tcon1_parents,
>  						      &ccu_div_ops,
>  						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
> +		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
>  	},
>  };

I'm not super comfortable with having to set it twice for dividers (or
composite clocks). Could we set CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST automatically
if CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set?

I'm guessing we would need it for muxes as well?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:50:05 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
>>  static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
>>  static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
>> -	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
>> +	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
>>  	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
>>  	.common		= {
>>  		.reg		= 0x11c,
>> @@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>>  						      tcon1_parents,
>>  						      &ccu_div_ops,
>>  						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
>> +		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
>>  	},
>>  };
>
> I'm not super comfortable with having to set it twice for dividers (or
> composite clocks). Could we set CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST automatically
> if CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set?

You're of course right. If I'm not mistaken, I can use
SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST that I introduced in div patch
(PATCH 7). Otherwise I'll create a similar macro for use with tcon1.

>
> I'm guessing we would need it for muxes as well?
>

Yes, it's already in the mux and div patches.

Best regards,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:50:05 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static const char * const tcon1_parents[] = { "pll-video0", "pll-video1" };
>>  static const u8 tcon1_table[] = { 0, 2, };
>>  static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>>  	.enable		= BIT(31),
>> -	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV(0, 4),
>> +	.div		= _SUNXI_CCU_DIV_FLAGS(0, 4, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST),
>>  	.mux		= _SUNXI_CCU_MUX_TABLE(24, 2, tcon1_table),
>>  	.common		= {
>>  		.reg		= 0x11c,
>> @@ -549,6 +550,7 @@ static struct ccu_div tcon1_clk = {
>>  						      tcon1_parents,
>>  						      &ccu_div_ops,
>>  						      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT),
>> +		.features	= CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
>>  	},
>>  };
>
> I'm not super comfortable with having to set it twice for dividers (or
> composite clocks). Could we set CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST automatically
> if CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE is set?

You're of course right. If I'm not mistaken, I can use
SUNXI_CCU_M_WITH_MUX_TABLE_GATE_CLOSEST that I introduced in div patch
(PATCH 7). Otherwise I'll create a similar macro for use with tcon1.

>
> I'm guessing we would need it for muxes as well?
>

Yes, it's already in the mux and div patches.

Best regards,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:19PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Changes in v3:
>  - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
>    nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
>    the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
>    (PATCH 1).
>  - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
>    v2 (PATCH 1).
>  - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
>    for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
>    calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
>    achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
>  - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
>    pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
>    are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
>    et. seq.).
>  - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Thanks so much for that new version. I know it's been a long discussion,
but it definitely moves in the right direction and we're fairly close to
a final version now.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:19PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> Changes in v3:
>  - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
>    nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
>    the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
>    (PATCH 1).
>  - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
>    v2 (PATCH 1).
>  - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
>    for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
>    calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
>    achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
>  - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
>    pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
>    are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
>    et. seq.).
>  - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/

Thanks so much for that new version. I know it's been a long discussion,
but it definitely moves in the right direction and we're fairly close to
a final version now.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:51:22 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:19PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> Changes in v3:
>>  - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
>>    nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
>>    the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
>>    (PATCH 1).
>>  - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
>>    v2 (PATCH 1).
>>  - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
>>    for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
>>    calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
>>    achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
>>  - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
>>    pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
>>    are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
>>    et. seq.).
>>  - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/
>
> Thanks so much for that new version. I know it's been a long discussion,
> but it definitely moves in the right direction and we're fairly close to
> a final version now.
>

I think it was a good discussion. So, thank you for that! I appreciate
your feedback even though we don't always agree. :)

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate

[Frank Oltmanns]

On 2023-07-03 at 09:51:22 +0200, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 07:55:19PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
>> Changes in v3:
>>  - Use dedicated function for finding the best rate in cases where an
>>    nkm clock supports setting its parent's rate, streamlining it with
>>    the structure that is used in other sunxi-ng ccus such as ccu_mp
>>    (PATCH 1).
>>  - Therefore, remove the now obsolete comments that were introduced in
>>    v2 (PATCH 1).
>>  - Remove the dedicated function for calculating the optimal parent rate
>>    for nkm clocks that was introduced in v2. Instead use a simple
>>    calculation and require the parent clock to select the closest rate to
>>    achieve optimal results (PATCH 1).
>>  - Therefore, add support to set the closest rate for nm clocks (because
>>    pll-mipi's parent pll-video0 is an nm clock) and all clock types that
>>    are descendants of a64's pll-video0, i.e., nkm, mux, and div (PATCH 3
>>    et. seq.).
>>  - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230611090143.132257-1-frank@oltmanns.dev/
>
> Thanks so much for that new version. I know it's been a long discussion,
> but it definitely moves in the right direction and we're fairly close to
> a final version now.
>

I think it was a good discussion. So, thank you for that! I appreciate
your feedback even though we don't always agree. :)

Thanks,
  Frank

>
> Maxime
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate

[kernel test robot]

BCC: lkp@intel.com
CC: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev
In-Reply-To: <20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc@oltmanns.dev>
References: <20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc@oltmanns.dev>
TO: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
TO: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
TO: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
TO: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
TO: "Chen-Yu Tsai" <wens@csie.org>
TO: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>
TO: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
TO: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
TO: Roman Beranek <me@crly.cz>
CC: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
CC: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
CC: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>

Hi Frank,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Frank-Oltmanns/clk-sunxi-ng-nkm-consider-alternative-parent-rates-when-determining-rate/20230703-015726
base:   6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc%40oltmanns.dev
patch subject: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
:::::: branch date: 26 hours ago
:::::: commit date: 26 hours ago
config: riscv-randconfig-m031-20230703 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230704/202307040351.19rZm4kd-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: riscv64-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.3.0
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230704/202307040351.19rZm4kd-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202307040351.19rZm4kd-lkp@intel.com/

smatch warnings:
drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:46 ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj() error: uninitialized symbol 'tmp_diff'.
drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c:93 ccu_nkm_find_best() error: uninitialized symbol 'tmp_diff'.

vim +/tmp_diff +46 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c

df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   19  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   20  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate,
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   21  						       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct clk_hw *phw,
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   22  						       unsigned long features)
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   23  {
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   24  	unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = 0, tmp_parent = *parent;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   25  	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   26  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   27  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   28  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   29  	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   30  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   31  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   32  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   33  				unsigned long tmp_diff;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   34  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   35  				tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, rate * _m / (_n * _k));
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   36  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   37  				tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   38  
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   39  				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   40  					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   41  						   rate - tmp_rate :
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   42  						   tmp_rate - rate;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   43  				} else {
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   44  					if (tmp_rate > rate)
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   45  						continue;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02  @46  					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   47  				}
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   48  
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   49  				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   50  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   51  					best_parent_rate = tmp_parent;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   52  					best_diff = tmp_diff;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   53  					best_n = _n;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   54  					best_k = _k;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   55  					best_m = _m;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   56  				}
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   57  			}
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   58  		}
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   59  	}
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   60  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   61  	nkm->n = best_n;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   62  	nkm->k = best_k;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   63  	nkm->m = best_m;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   64  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   65  	*parent = best_parent_rate;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   66  
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   67  	return best_rate;
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   68  }
8a97d9f6cbb457 Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   69  
657f477a89acb2 Samuel Holland 2022-12-31   70  static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   71  				       struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, unsigned long features)
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   72  {
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   73  	unsigned long best_rate = 0;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   74  	unsigned long best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   75  	unsigned long best_n = 0, best_k = 0, best_m = 0;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   76  	unsigned long _n, _k, _m;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   77  
6e0d50daa97f4b Maxime Ripard  2016-09-29   78  	for (_k = nkm->min_k; _k <= nkm->max_k; _k++) {
6e0d50daa97f4b Maxime Ripard  2016-09-29   79  		for (_n = nkm->min_n; _n <= nkm->max_n; _n++) {
6e0d50daa97f4b Maxime Ripard  2016-09-29   80  			for (_m = nkm->min_m; _m <= nkm->max_m; _m++) {
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   81  				unsigned long tmp_rate;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   82  				unsigned long tmp_diff;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   83  
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   84  				tmp_rate = parent * _n * _k / _m;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   85  
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   86  				if (features & CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE) {
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   87  					tmp_diff = rate > tmp_rate ?
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   88  						   rate - tmp_rate :
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   89  						   tmp_rate - rate;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   90  				} else {
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   91  					if (tmp_rate > rate)
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   92  						continue;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02  @93  					tmp_diff = rate - tmp_diff;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   94  				}
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   95  
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   96  				if (tmp_diff < best_diff) {
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   97  					best_rate = tmp_rate;
8e5b4aea92912f Frank Oltmanns 2023-07-02   98  					best_diff = tmp_diff;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29   99  					best_n = _n;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  100  					best_k = _k;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  101  					best_m = _m;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  102  				}
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  103  			}
ee28648cb2b4d4 Maxime Ripard  2016-09-29  104  		}
ee28648cb2b4d4 Maxime Ripard  2016-09-29  105  	}
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  106  
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  107  	nkm->n = best_n;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  108  	nkm->k = best_k;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  109  	nkm->m = best_m;
657f477a89acb2 Samuel Holland 2022-12-31  110  
657f477a89acb2 Samuel Holland 2022-12-31  111  	return best_rate;
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  112  }
df6561e60244c0 Maxime Ripard  2016-06-29  113  

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki