lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 2/4] pwm: tegra: Increase precision in pwm rate calculation
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:04:00PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> The rate of the PWM calculated as follows:
> hz = NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns;
> rate = (rate + (hz / 2)) / hz;
>
> This has the precision loss in lower PWM rate.
>
> Change this to have more precision as:
> hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(NSEC_PER_SEC * 100, period_ns);
> rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(rate * 100, hz)
>
> Example:
> 1. period_ns = 16672000, PWM clock rate is 200KHz.
> Based on old formula
> hz = NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns
> = 1000000000ul/16672000
> = 59 (59.98)
> rate = (200K + 59/2)/59 = 3390
>
> Based on new method:
> hz = 5998
> rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSE(200000*100, 5998) = 3334
>
> If we measure the PWM signal rate, we will get more accurate period
> with rate value of 3334 instead of 3390.
>
> 2. period_ns = 16803898, PWM clock rate is 200KHz.
> Based on old formula:
> hz = 59, rate = 3390
> Based on new formula:
> hz = 5951, rate = 3360
>
> The PWM signal rate of 3360 is more near to requested period than 3333.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - None
>
> Changes from V2:
> - Fix the commit message with exact formula used.
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> index 0a688da..21518be 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> struct tegra_pwm_chip *pc = to_tegra_pwm_chip(chip);
> unsigned long long c = duty_ns;
> unsigned long rate, hz;
> + unsigned long long ns100 = NSEC_PER_SEC;
> u32 val = 0;
> int err;
>
> @@ -94,9 +95,11 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> * cycles at the PWM clock rate will take period_ns nanoseconds.
> */
> rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk) >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
> - hz = NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns;
>
> - rate = (rate + (hz / 2)) / hz;
> + /* Consider precision in PWM_SCALE_WIDTH rate calculation */
> + ns100 *= 100;
> + hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(ns100, period_ns);

I think hz could overflow for small enough values of period_ns. I've
sent a patch that makes hz unsigned long long. While at it, the patch
also removes the ns100 variable which isn't really necessary here.

Thierry
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-12 19:19    [W:0.070 / U:14.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site