Hi,
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:13:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:44:17AM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:42:15AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> > > > You're storing an unsigned long long (i.e. 64 bits) in an u32. If
> > > > you are sure that this won't discard relevant bits, please explain
> > > > this in a comment for the cursory reader.
> > >
> > > What about an extra check then to make sure that the period has not been
> > > truncated,
> > > e.g:
> > >
> > > value = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler);
> > >
> > > /* dont accept a period that is too small or has been truncated */
> > > if ((value < PERIOD_MIN) ||
> > > (value != DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler)))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Rather than doing another 64 bit division which is expensive (esp on 32 bit
> > kernels), you could assign to u64 and check:
> >
> > if (value < PERIOD_MIN || value > U32_MAX)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> Given that value is a u32, value > U32_MAX will never trigger.
I meant that value is declared u64 as well ("assign to u64").
> Maybe checking period before doing the division is more sensible.
That could introduce rounding errors, exactly why PERIOD_MIN was introduced.
> > > > Also note that round_closed is probably wrong, as .apply() is
> > > > supposed to round down the period to the next achievable period. (But
> > > > fixing this has to do done in a separate patch.)
> > >
> > > According to commit 11fc4edc4 rounding to the closest integer has been
> > > introduced
> > > to improve precision in case that the pwm controller is used by the
> > > pwm-ir-tx driver.
> > > I dont know how strong the requirement is to round down the period in
> > > apply(), but I
> > > can imagine that this may be a good reason to deviate from this rule.
> > > (CCing Sean Young who introduced DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST)
> >
> > There was a problem where the carrier is incorrect for some IR hardware
> > which uses a carrier of 455kHz. With periods that small, rounding errors
> > do really matter and rounding down might cause problems.
> >
> > A policy of rounding down the carrier is not the right thing to do
> > for pwm-ir-tx, and such a change will probably break pwm-ir-tx in some
> > edge cases.
>
> IMO it's not an option to say: pwm-driver A is used for IR, so A's
> .apply uses round-nearest and pwm-driver B is used for $somethingelse,
> so B's .apply uses round-down.
I'm not saying that one driver should have one it one way and another driver
another way.
> To be a sensible API pwm_apply_state
> should have a fixed behaviour. I consider round-down the sensible
> choice (because it is easier to implmement the other options with this)
It's not sensible when it's wrong about half the time.
Why is is easier to implement?
> and for consumers like the IR stuff we need to provide some more
> functions to allow it selecting a better suited state. Something like:
>
> pwm_round_state_nearest(pwm, { .period = 2198, .. }, &state)
>
> which queries the hardwares capabilities and then assigns state.period =
> 2200 instead of 2100.
This is very elaborate and surely not "easier to implement". Why not just
do the right thing in the first place and round-closest?
> Where can I find the affected (consumer) driver?
So there is the pwm-ir-tx driver. The infrared led is directly connected
to the pwm output pin, so that's all there is.
Thanks,
Sean
