From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:05:58 +0200
Subject: Common/typical fractional divider HW API
In-Reply-To: <56B4B67D.2080707@free.fr>
References: <56B4B67D.2080707@free.fr>
Message-ID: <1454684758.31169.77.camel@linux.intel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

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