On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:03:26 -0700
Brian Norris [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
quoted
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) ...
Woh! Thanks for the detailed explanation. Do you want me to put that in
a comment explaining why we're using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL()?
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com