From: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
To: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
Roman Beranek <me@crly.cz>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2023 09:17:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wmzhsbu0.fsf@oltmanns.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230702-pll-mipi_set_rate_parent-v3-5-46dcb8aa9cbc@oltmanns.dev>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-03 7:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-02 17:55 [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: consider alternative parent rates when determining rate Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 6:47 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 8:02 ` Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: allow pll-mipi to set parent's rate Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 6:47 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Add feature to find closest rate Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 6:48 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nm: Support finding " Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 7:24 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 8:46 ` Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: " Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-02 20:06 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-03 7:17 ` Frank Oltmanns [this message]
2023-07-03 7:25 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 8:59 ` Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 11:36 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 7:33 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] clk: sunxi-ng: mux: " Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 7:38 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 9:17 ` Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 11:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] clk: sunxi-ng: div: " Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 7:39 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-02 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: select closest rate for pll-video0 Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 7:50 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 9:28 ` Frank Oltmanns
2023-07-03 7:51 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates when determining NKM clock rate Maxime Ripard
2023-07-03 9:36 ` Frank Oltmanns
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=87wmzhsbu0.fsf@oltmanns.dev \
--to=frank@oltmanns.dev \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=jernej.skrabec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maxime@cerno.tech \
--cc=me@crly.cz \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=samuel@sholland.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=wens@csie.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).