mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-26 05:34:13 +08:00
pwm: tegra: Optimize period calculation
Dividing by the result of a division looses precision because the result is rounded twice. E.g. with clk_rate = 48000000 and period = 32760033 the following numbers result: rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH = 187500 hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC, period_ns) = 3052 rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, hz) = 6144 The exact result would be 6142.5061875 and (apart from rounding) this is found by using a single division. As a side effect is also a tad cheaper to calculate. Also using clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH looses precision. Consider for example clk_rate = 47999999 and period = 106667: mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH, period_ns, NSEC_PER_SEC) = 19 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate, period_ns, NSEC_PER_SEC << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH) = 20 (The exact result is 20.000062083332033.) With this optimizations also switch from round-closest to round-down for the period calculation. Given that the calculations were non-optimal for quite some time now with variations in both directions which nobody reported as a problem, this is the opportunity to align the driver's behavior to the requirements of new drivers. This has several upsides: - Implementation is easier as there are no round-nearest variants of mul_u64_u64_div_u64(). - Requests for too small periods are now consistently refused. This was kind of arbitrary before, where period_ns < min_period_ns was refused, but in some cases min_period_ns isn't actually implementable and then values between min_period_ns and the actual minimum were rounded up to the actual minimum. Note that the duty_cycle calculation isn't using the usual round-down approach yet. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
615f4e8446
commit
8c193f4714
@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
int duty_ns, int period_ns)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct tegra_pwm_chip *pc = to_tegra_pwm_chip(chip);
|
||||
unsigned long long c = duty_ns, hz;
|
||||
unsigned long long c = duty_ns;
|
||||
unsigned long rate, required_clk_rate;
|
||||
u32 val = 0;
|
||||
int err;
|
||||
@ -156,11 +156,9 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
pc->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Consider precision in PWM_SCALE_WIDTH rate calculation */
|
||||
hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC, period_ns);
|
||||
rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, hz);
|
||||
rate = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(pc->clk_rate, period_ns,
|
||||
(u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Since the actual PWM divider is the register's frequency divider
|
||||
@ -169,6 +167,8 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (rate > 0)
|
||||
rate--;
|
||||
else
|
||||
return -EINVAL;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Make sure that the rate will fit in the register's frequency
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user