From: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Common/typical fractional divider HW API
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:05:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1454684758.31169.77.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56B4B67D.2080707@free.fr>
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:49 +0100, Mason wrote:
> Hello,
>
> AFAICT, the clk-fractional-divider driver implements the following
> hardware API:
>
> ? M and N are two fields in the same register.
> ? DIV = M / N
>
> Is this HW API common/typical in the embedded world?
> in the PC world?
>
At least all new Intel SoCs have it, besides that there is one more
user of the struct clk_fractional_divider, but I have no idea if they
have something similar to this.
>
> My hardware uses a slightly weird (to me) API:
>
> ? I = 0-255 (8 bits)
> ? F = 0-15??(4 bits)
This part is okay.
>
> ? I = 0 => DIV = +INF
On Intel we recognize this as an absence of the divider.
> ? I = 1 => DIV = 1 + F/(32-F)
Weird part, indeed. But seems it doubles a precision in a range
[1 .. 1 + 1/2]
> ? I > 1 => DIV = I + F/16
This just normal operation.
>
> Is this HW API common/typical in the embedded world?
> (Perhaps just the linear part for I > 1)
I saw similar approach in few UART drivers, but they do not use CLK
framework.
So, I could consider this one is more popular / wider, than what we
have in Intel SoCs.
>
> I see two downsides to this API:
>
> 1) I = 1 is a special case
> 2) A lot of the value space is wasted on large values.
>
> For example, when I = 250, we don't really care about 250.0625,
> 250.125,
> etc, or even nearby integer values, for that matter.
>
> I think it's better to have a distribution with high density in small
> values, and low density in high values (sort of like floating point).
>
> For example:
>
> ? I = 0-15??(4 bits)
> ? F = 0-255 (8 bits)
> ? DIV = 2^I * (1 + F/256)
>
> (We could probably even shave 2-4 bits on F.)
>
> Are there downsides to this HW API?
> Is this HW API common/typical in the embedded world?
So, what is your intention? If you would like to use CLK framework you
might consider existing providers and users and might implement a
specific one for similar cases.
Also it's possible to convert clock providers for, e.g., UARTs to use
this kind of divider.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-05 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-05 14:49 Common/typical fractional divider HW API Mason
2016-02-05 15:05 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2016-02-05 16:01 ` Mason
2016-02-05 16:12 ` Andy Shevchenko
2016-02-05 16:29 ` Mason
2016-02-05 16:43 ` Andy Shevchenko
2016-02-07 16:04 ` Mason
2016-02-15 15:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1454684758.31169.77.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).