> The original would return val == 1, period == 62499999; While this does have > some error [val / (period * 16 + 8) is slightly bigger than 1 / 10^9, error at > 18[?] digit after dot], it's the best we can configure for the HW.
Correction. That's actually not *the best* we could configure - due to stopping at the first value between equal differences. [you've already commented on that in the past, mentioning that we should use >= and not >]. But that doesn't change the fact that your approximation can choose numbers which can't be configured to the HW, and as a result incorrectly pick some that will not minimize the approximation error. > One simple adjustment we could do is simply break from the loop If 'diff == > 0'. At least for small PPB value this would be hit relatively quickly. Given the previous correction, the suggestion would also include reversing the order of the iteration [7 -> 1 instead of 1 -> 7].
