On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:13:06PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> The previous algorithm hardcoded details about how the TCU clocks work.
> The new algorithm will use clk_round_rate to find the perfect clock rate
> for the PWM channel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <p...@crapouillou.net>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>      v9: New patch
> 
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
> index c6136bd4434b..dd80a2cf6528 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
> @@ -110,23 +110,27 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, 
> struct pwm_device *pwm,
>       struct jz4740_pwm_chip *jz4740 = to_jz4740(pwm->chip);
>       struct clk *clk = jz4740->clks[pwm->hwpwm],
>                  *parent_clk = clk_get_parent(clk);
> -     unsigned long rate, period, duty;
> +     unsigned long rate, new_rate, period, duty;
>       unsigned long long tmp;
> -     unsigned int prescaler = 0;
>  
>       rate = clk_get_rate(parent_clk);
> -     tmp = (unsigned long long)rate * state->period;
> -     do_div(tmp, 1000000000);
> -     period = tmp;
>  
> -     while (period > 0xffff && prescaler < 6) {
> -             period >>= 2;
> -             rate >>= 2;
> -             ++prescaler;
> +     for (;;) {
> +             tmp = (unsigned long long)rate * state->period;
> +             do_div(tmp, 1000000000);

NSEC_PER_SEC?

> +
> +             if (tmp <= 0xffff)
> +                     break;
> +
> +             new_rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate - 1);
> +
> +             if (new_rate < rate)
> +                     rate = new_rate;
> +             else
> +                     return -EINVAL;

You are assuming stuff here about the parent clk which isn't guaranteed
(AFAICT) by the clk framework: If you call clk_round_rate(clk, rate - 1)
this might well return rate even if the clock could run slower than
rate.

Wouldn't it make sense to start iterating with rate = 0xffff * 1e9 /
period? Otherwise you get bad configurations if rate is considerable
slower than necessary.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Reply via email to