> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafal Ozieblo [mailto:raf...@cadence.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:20 AM
> To: Andrei Pistirica - M16132; richardcoch...@gmail.com
> Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; da...@davemloft.net;
> nicolas.fe...@atmel.com; harinikatakamli...@gmail.com;
> harini.kata...@xilinx.com; punn...@xilinx.com; mich...@xilinx.com;
> anir...@xilinx.com; boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com;
> alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com; tbul...@pixelsurmer.com
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 1/2] macb: Add 1588 support in Cadence
> GEM.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: andrei.pistir...@microchip.com
> > [mailto:andrei.pistir...@microchip.com]
> > Sent: 8 grudnia 2016 15:42
> > To: richardcoch...@gmail.com
> > Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; da...@davemloft.net;
> > nicolas.fe...@atmel.com; harinikatakamli...@gmail.com;
> > harini.kata...@xilinx.com; punn...@xilinx.com; mich...@xilinx.com;
> > anir...@xilinx.com; boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com;
> > alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com; tbul...@pixelsurmer.com; Rafal
> > Ozieblo
> > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 1/2] macb: Add 1588 support in
> Cadence GEM.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcoch...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:04 PM
> > > To: Andrei Pistirica - M16132
> > > Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> > > ker...@lists.infradead.org; da...@davemloft.net;
> > > nicolas.fe...@atmel.com; harinikatakamli...@gmail.com;
> > > harini.kata...@xilinx.com; punn...@xilinx.com; mich...@xilinx.com;
> > > anir...@xilinx.com; boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com;
> > > alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com; tbul...@pixelsurmer.com;
> > > raf...@cadence.com
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 1/2] macb: Add 1588 support in
> > > Cadence GEM.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:39:09PM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > > > +static s32 gem_ptp_max_adj(unsigned int f_nom) {
> > > > > + u64 adj;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* The 48 bits of seconds for the GEM overflows every:
> > > > > + * 2^48/(365.25 * 24 * 60 *60) =~ 8 925 512 years (~= 9 mil
> > > > > years),
> > > > > + * thus the maximum adjust frequency must not overflow
> > > > > + CNS
> > > register:
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * addend = 10^9/nominal_freq
> > > > > + * adj_max = +/- addend*ppb_max/10^9
> > > > > + * max_ppb = (2^8-1)*nominal_freq-10^9
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + adj = f_nom;
> > > > > + adj *= 0xffff;
> > > > > + adj -= 1000000000ULL;
> > > >
> > > > What is this computation, and how does it relate to the comment?
> >
> > I considered the following simple equation: increment value at nominal
> frequency (which is 10^9/nominal frequency nsecs) + the maximum drift
> value (nsecs) <= maximum increment value at nominal frequency (which is
> 8bit:0xffff).
> > If maximum drift is written as function of nominal frequency and
> maximum ppb, then the equation above yields that the maximum ppb is:
> (2^8 - 1) *nominal_frequency - 10^9. The equation is also simplified by the
> fact that the drift is written as ppm + 16bit_fractions and the increment
> value is written as nsec + 16bit_fractions.
> >
> > Rafal said that this value is hardcoded: 0x64E6, while Harini said:
> 250000000.
>
> To clarify a little bit. In my reference code this value (0x64E6) was taken
> from our legacy code. It was used for testing only. I know it should be
> change to something more accurate. This is the reason why I asked how did
> you count it (250000000). According to our calculations this value depends
> on actual set period (incr_ns and incr_sub_ns) and min and max value we
> can set. The calculation were a little bit intricate, so we decided to leave
> it
> as it was.
>
> >
> > I need to dig into this...
> >
> > >
> > > I am not sure what you meant, but it sounds like you are on the wrong
> track.
> > > Let me explain...
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > The max_adj has nothing at all to do with the width of the time register.
> > > Rather, it should reflect the maximum possible change in the tuning
> word.
> > >
> > > For example, with a nominal 8 ns period, the tuning word is 0x80000.
> > > Looking at running the clock more slowly, the slowest possible word
> > > is 0x00001, meaning a difference of 0x7FFFF. This implies an
> > > adjustment of
> > > 0x7FFFF/0x80000 or 999998092 ppb. Running more quickly, we can
> > > already have 0x100000, twice as fast, or just under 2 billion ppb.
> > >
> > > You should consider the extreme cases to determine the most limited
> > > (smallest) max_adj value:
> > >
> > > Case 1 - high frequency
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > With a nominal 1 ns period, we have the nominal tuning word 0x10000.
> > > The smallest is 0x1 for a difference of 0xFFFF. This corresponds to
> > > an adjustment of 0xFFFF/0x10000 = .9999847412109375 or 999984741 ppb.
> > >
> > > Case 2 - low frequency
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > With a nominal 255 ns period, the nominal word is 0xFF0000, the
> > > largest 0xFFFFFF, and the difference is 0xFFFF. This corresponds to
> > > and adjustment of 0xFFFF/0xFF0000 = .0039215087890625 or 3921508 ppb.
> > >
> > > Since 3921508 ppb is a huge adjustment, you can simply use that as a
> > > safe maximum, ignoring the actual input clock.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrei
> >
>
> Best regards,
> Rafal Ozieblo | Firmware System Engineer,
> phone nbr.: +48 32 5085469
> www.cadence.com
Hi Guys,
Based on Richard's input, this is what I want to do for our platforms:
struct macb_ptp_info {
void (*ptp_init)(struct net_device *ndev);
void (*ptp_remove)(struct net_device *ndev);
+ s32 (*get_ptp_max_adj)(void);
unsigned int (*get_tsu_rate)(struct macb *bp);
int (*get_ts_info)(struct net_device *dev,
struct ethtool_ts_info *info);
int (*get_hwtst)(struct net_device *netdev,
struct ifreq *ifr);
int (*set_hwtst)(struct net_device *netdev,
struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd);
};
+static s32 gem_get_ptp_max_adj(void)
+{
+ return 3921508;
+}
static struct macb_ptp_info gem_ptp_info = {
.ptp_init = gem_ptp_init,
.ptp_remove = gem_ptp_remove,
+ .get_ptp_max_adj = gem_get_ptp_max_adj,
.get_tsu_rate = gem_get_tsu_rate,
.get_ts_info = gem_get_ts_info,
.get_hwtst = gem_get_hwtst,
.set_hwtst = gem_set_hwtst,
};
[...]
void gem_ptp_init(struct net_device *ndev)
{
[...]
/* nominal frequency and maximum adjustment in ppb */
bp->tsu_rate = bp->ptp_info->get_tsu_rate(bp);
+ bp->ptp_caps.max_adj = bp->ptp_info->get_ptp_max_adj();
[...]
}
Richard, are you agree with this?
Harini, you can fill the callback with the value for your platform. Tell me if
you are ok with function's signature.
Regards,
Andrei
