Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] v4l: Aptina-style sensor PLL support

Laurent Pinchart
2012-03-05T12:03:17Z

Hi Andy,

On Sunday 04 March 2012 21:38:54 Andy Walls wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 11:20 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Saturday 03 March 2012 12:35:09 Andy Walls wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 16:28 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > Add a generic helper function to compute PLL parameters for PLL found
> > > > in
> > > > several Aptina sensors.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > +int aptina_pll_configure(struct device *dev, struct aptina_pll *pll,
> > > > + const struct aptina_pll_limits *limits)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int mf_min;
> > > > + unsigned int mf_max;
> > > > + unsigned int p1_min;
> > > > + unsigned int p1_max;
> > > > + unsigned int p1;
> > > > + unsigned int div;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pll->ext_clock < limits->ext_clock_min ||
> > > > + pll->ext_clock > limits->ext_clock_max) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "pll: invalid external clock frequency.\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pll->pix_clock > limits->pix_clock_max) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "pll: invalid pixel clock frequency.\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Compute the multiplier M and combined N*P1 divisor. */
> > > > + div = gcd(pll->pix_clock, pll->ext_clock);
> > > > + pll->m = pll->pix_clock / div;
> > > > + div = pll->ext_clock / div;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* We now have the smallest M and N*P1 values that will result in
> > > > the
> > > > + * desired pixel clock frequency, but they might be out of the valid
> > > > + * range. Compute the factor by which we should multiply them given
> > > > + * the following constraints:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * - minimum/maximum multiplier
> > > > + * - minimum/maximum multiplier output clock frequency assuming the
> > > > + * minimum/maximum N value
> > > > + * - minimum/maximum combined N*P1 divisor
> > > > + */
> > > > + mf_min = DIV_ROUND_UP(limits->m_min, pll->m);
> > > > + mf_min = max(mf_min, limits->out_clock_min /
> > > > + (pll->ext_clock / limits->n_min * pll->m));
> > > > + mf_min = max(mf_min, limits->n_min * limits->p1_min / div);
> > > > + mf_max = limits->m_max / pll->m;
> > > > + mf_max = min(mf_max, limits->out_clock_max /
> > > > + (pll->ext_clock / limits->n_max * pll->m));
> > > > + mf_max = min(mf_max, DIV_ROUND_UP(limits->n_max * limits->p1_max,
> >
> > div));
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "pll: mf min %u max %u\n", mf_min, mf_max);
> > > > + if (mf_min > mf_max) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "pll: no valid combined N*P1 divisor.\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We're looking for the highest acceptable P1 value
> > >
> > > Why the *highest* acceptable post-divide (P1) value?
> >
> > According to the Aptina datasheets, "it is desirable to keep (fEXTCLK / n)
> > as large as possible within the limits".
>
> OK. I'm looking ath the MT9P031 datasheet now.
>
> The PLL implemented looks like a Classical Digital PLL (DPLL) with
> - a Phase/Frequency Detector (PFD) phase detector
> - a prescaler (divide by n) of the external reference (ext_clock) in
> front of of the PFD
> - a post-divider (divide by p1) for dividing the VCO's operating
> frequency down (out_clock) for use as an output
> - a divider in the feedback loop to multiply (by m) the locked operating
> frequency of the VCO compared to the prescaled ext_clock (ext_clock/n)
>
> Aptina's recommendation to keep ext_clock/n as large as possible for
> best performance makes sense intuitively: more frequent phase error
> measurements probably leads to better phase tracking.
>
> Since
> pix_clock = ext_clock / n * m / p1
>
> I guess the objective is really to minimize m/p1 in order to meet the
> recommendation.

I agree.

> > > for which a
> > >
> > > > + * multiplier factor MF exists that fulfills the following
> >
> > conditions:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * 1. p1 is in the [p1_min, p1_max] range given by the limits and is
> > > > + * even
> > > > + * 2. mf is in the [mf_min, mf_max] range computed above
> > > > + * 3. div * mf is a multiple of p1, in order to compute
> > > > + * n = div * mf / p1
> > > > + * m = pll->m * mf
> > > > + * 4. the internal clock frequency, given by ext_clock / n, is in
> > > > the
> > > > + * [int_clock_min, int_clock_max] range given by the limits
> > > > + * 5. the output clock frequency, given by ext_clock / n * m, is in
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > + * [out_clock_min, out_clock_max] range given by the limits
> > > > + *
> > >
> > > So just to make your constrained optimzation problem even more complex:
> > >
> > > I would imagine you would get faster PLL lock and less phase noise by
> > > having the VCO operate near its center frequency.
> > >
> > > If you think that is a sensible constraint, then that translates to
> > > having the PLL output before post-divide (i.e. ext_clock / n * m), to be
> > > as close as possible to the center frequency of the VCO (i.e.
> > > (out_clock_max - out_clock_min) / 2 ).
> >
> > Good point. But... *ouch* :-)
>
> Sorry. However, upon more research and reflection, I'll revise my
> suggestion to be: set m as close as possible to m_mean =
> sqrt(m_min*m_max), as that may be optimal for the PLL's operation. (See
> below).
>
> > Do you think it's worth it ?
>
> Well, that depends on the chip design details, but I'm guessing the
> answer is "No". ;)

I really like that answer :-)

> For frequency synthesis, one normally doesn't worry much about phase
> noise, unless clock jitter will somehow adversely affect the results of
> the processing downstream.
>
> For frequency sythesis, one normally does care about DPLL response to
> changes in the external frequency or the programmed frequency, in order
> to quickly lock-in or pull-in to a change. That may not matter for this
> sensor, if the DPLL and external clock are only set up at startup, or
> very infrequently.

Yes, that's the case here. The external frequency is fixed (drift/jitter of
course come into play), and the PLL configuration isn't changed at runtime.

> Above I suggested you might try to pick m as close to m_mean =
> sqrt(m_min * m_max) as practical. In the absence of detailed design
> information, I will guess that is where the DPLL's dynamic response is
> "optimal".
>
> The damping factor, zeta, of the phase transfer function of the PLL, is
> inversely proportional to 1/sqrt(m). So zeta_min = k/sqrt(m_max) and
> zeta_max = k/sqrt(m_min). A DPLL with zeta == 1 is critically damped.
> As zeta becomes < 1, the transient response of the PLL to a change
> becomes increasingly oscillatory. As zeta grows > 1, the response of
> the PLL to a change becomes increasingly overdamped (sluggish).
>
> A zeta = 1/sqrt(2) ~= 0.7071 provides an optimally flat, phase transfer
> function response for the PLL. (According to the textbook "Phase-Locked
> Loops: Theory, Design, and Applications, Second Edition" by Roland E.
> Best, 1993). I will simply guess that the DPLLs in the Aptina devices
> were designed with zeta_mean = k/sqrt(m_mean) = 0.7071.
>
> For the MT9P031, m can range from [16, 256), so m_mean = 64. Assuming
> zeta_mean = 0.7071, then zeta_min = 0.3536 and zeta_max = 1.414.
>
> From here, one could go on, making some assumptions about the data in
> the Aptina datasheet and compute the lock-range of the PLL. The
> lock-range is the range of frequencies around the VCO center freq where
> the PLL will lock to the reference freq within the time of 1 beat note
> between ext_clock/n and out_clock (i.e. very fast). Note that the
> lock-range around the VCO center frequency increases proportionally to
> 1/m.
>
> Anyway, I've rambled enough.

Thanks for the rambling, it's very informative. It reminded me of my telecom
classes. PLL was actually my oral exam question :-) Only analog PLLs were part
of the class though.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart