From: briannorris@chromium.org (Brian Norris)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:03:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160603200326.GA124478@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464942192-25967-4-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The current implementation always round down the duty and period
> values, while it would be better to round them to the closest integer.
Agreed. As I noted to you elsewhere, not having this change can cause
problems where doing a series of pwm_get_state() / modify /
pwm_apply_state() will propagate rounding errors, which will change the
period unexpectedly. e.g., I have an expected period of 3.333 us and a
clk rate of 112.666667 MHz -- the clock frequency doesn't divide evenly,
so the period (stashed in nanoseconds) shrinks when we convert to the
register value and back, as follows:
pwm_apply_state(): register = period * 112666667 / 1000000000;
pwm_get_state(): period = register * 1000000000 / 112666667;
or in other words:
period = period * 112666667 / 1000000000 * 1000000000 / 112666667;
which yields a sequence like:
3333 -> 3328
3328 -> 3319
3319 -> 3310
3310 -> 3301
3301 -> 3292
3292 -> ... (etc) ...
With this patch, we'd see instead:
period = div_round_closest(period * 112666667, 1000000000) * 1000000000 / 112666667;
which yields a stable sequence:
3333 -> 3337
3337 -> 3337
3337 -> ... (etc) ...
Seems much saner to me.
Now, I note that in patch 10 you're now using pwm_prepare_new_state() to
avoid this propagation problem entirely (good idea anyway, IMO), but I
just wanted to further note what kind of real problems we can see when
we don't round to the closest value.
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested this whole series on rk3399's PWM regulators used for the CPUs,
to clarify what my Tested-by means.
Thanks for the patches.
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index 7d9cc90..68d72ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -114,12 +114,11 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> * default prescaler value for all practical clock rate values.
> */
> div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> - do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> - period = div;
> + period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(div,
> + pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>
> div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> - do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> - duty = div;
> + duty = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>
> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> if (ret)
> --
> 2.7.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-03 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-03 8:22 [PATCH 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 8:22 ` [PATCH 01/14] pwm: Add new helpers to create/manipulate PWM states Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 02/14] regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 11:08 ` Applied "regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:03 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2016-06-04 6:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-07 17:25 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:07 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:20 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04 6:24 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-07 17:26 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:28 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04 6:26 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 06/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:37 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 07/14] pwm: sti: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:38 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:41 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 10/14] regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:50 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04 6:28 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-06 6:14 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 11/14] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:51 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 12/14] regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:55 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:03 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04 6:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 8:23 ` [PATCH 14/14] regulator: pwm: Document pwm-dutycycle-unit and pwm-dutycycle-range Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:04 ` Brian Norris
2016-06-06 14:09 ` Rob Herring
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=20160603200326.GA124478@google.com \
--to=briannorris@chromium.org \
--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).