Am 03.05.2013 22:47, schrieb Troy Kisky:
On 5/2/2013 10:58 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Do you want to say you propose
post_div = pre_div / 16;
pre_div = 16;
?
yes, that's what I said
If so:
First, I agree that we have to use the same dividers in both lines.
But, second, this would mean that you use /16 as max pre_div. For
the i.MX6 case where clk_src is 60MHz this would result in a
pre-divided clock of 3.75Mhz (instead of 4MHz with /15).
That does sound better for i.MX6, what about other processors using
this file?
So using /15 or /16 is just a decision of which end clocks most
probably are needed.
If you want to be able to configure 4MHz, 2MHz, 1MHz, 500kHz etc
then /15 is the better choice.
If you want to be able to configure 3.75Mhz, 1.875MHz, 937.5kHz,
468.75kHz etc then /16 is the better choice.
I vote for /15 as done by my patch.
Thanks for explaining. The downside of using /15 is that you can't get
the slowest clock possible.
Yes. I was looking for the _highest_ clock possible, though ;) And
this isn't correctly done by the recent code. This is why I was
looking into it ...
How about restructuring the code to improve both. Calculate post_div
first.
pre_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_src, max_hz);
/* fls(1) = 1, fls(0x80000000) = 32, fls(16) = 5 */
post_div = fls(pre_div - 1);
if (post_div > 4)
post_div -= 4;
else
post_div = 0;
if (post_div >= 16) {
printf("Error: no divider for the freq: %d\n",
max_hz);
return -1;
}
pre_div = (pre_div + (1 << post_div) - 1) >> post_div;
Using my test code gives the correct values using this algorithm. So
yes, sounds good.
Just a small note: Wouldn't it be better to put the printf and the
last line with the pre_div calculation into the if(post_div > 4) part?
I.e.
pre_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_src, max_hz);
/* fls(1) = 1, fls(0x80000000) = 32, fls(16) = 5 */
post_div = fls(pre_div - 1);
if (post_div > 4) {
post_div -= 4;
if (post_div >= 16) {
printf("Error: no divider for the freq: %d\n",
max_hz);
return -1;
}
pre_div = (pre_div + (1 << post_div) - 1) >> post_div;
} else
post_div = 0;
?
In case we agree on this, I'm thinking about doing 2 patches to make
clear what we are doing:
1. Re-doing my initial patch with
post_div = pre_div / 16;
pre_div = 16;
This would be the "fix the issues in the existing (non-optimal)
algorithm but keep that" patch.
2. Replace the existing algorithm with your above version. This would
be the "improve the algorithm" patch.
What do you think?
Best regards
Dirk
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
