From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 09:58:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH V2] ARM: imx: correct Audio/Video PLL rate calculation
 formula
In-Reply-To: <20150507073807.GA2864@shlinux1.ap.freescale.net>
References: <1431006970-2864-1-git-send-email-b20788@freescale.com>
 <20150507072537.GC12306@pengutronix.de>
 <20150507073807.GA2864@shlinux1.ap.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <20150507075844.GF12306@pengutronix.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hello,

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:38:10PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:25:37AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:56:10PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > The audio/video PLL's rate calculation formula is as below in RM:
> > > 
> > > Fref * (DIV_SELECT + NUM / DENOM),
> > > 
> > > in original clk-pllv3's code, below code is used:
> > > 
> > > (parent_rate * div) + ((parent_rate / mfd) * mfn
> > Here a closing ) is missing
> > 
> 
> Thanks, will fix it later.
> 
> > > 
> > > as it does NOT consider the float data using div, so below
> > > calculation formula should be used as a decent method:
> > > 
> > > (parent_rate * div) + ((parent_rate * mfn) / mfd)
> > > 
> > > and we also need to consider parent_rate * mfd may exceed
> > > a 32 bit value, 64 bit value should be used.
> > > 
> > > Below is one example of old/new formula's difference:
> > > 
> > > On i.MX7D, DRAM PLL is a Audio/Video type PLL, the target freq
> > > is 1066MHz, the register settings are as below:
> > > 
> > > PLL_DDRn: 8060202C   -> div = 0x2C
> > > DDR_NUM: 06AAAC4D    -> mfn = 0x6AAAC4D
> > > DDR_DENOM: 100003EC  -> mfd = 0x100003EC
> > > 
> > > parent_rate = 24MHz.
> > > 
> > > with old formula, the (parent_rate / mfd) * mfn = 0 with new formula,
> > > the (parent_rate * mfn) / mfd = 10, so old formula gets
> > That's wrong. (parent_rate * mfn) / mfd == 10000000.
> > 
> 
> OK, I forgot to mention the result is 10MHz.
> 
> > > PLL_DDR = 1056MHz, new formuls gets PLL_DDR = 1066MHz.
> > So which one is better? To see this it would be nice to also point out
> > the exact value here.
> 
> "the target freq is 1066MHz", means 1066MHz should be the correct value.
I would still write:

	So the old formula results in 1056 MHz, while the updated
	calculation yields 1066 MHz which exactly matches the real rate.

> > 
> > Another way to get to a more exact calculation but without a 64 bit
> > division is using shifted math. The formula gets more difficult though,
> > so probably not worth the effort.
> 
> It is NOT easy to understand if using shift, and in other functions of
> this file, they all use div, so keeping them aligned is also acceptable?
sure, I quickly tried to come up with the needed formula that uses
shifted math, but dropped it after a few minutes. As the calculation
isn't done in a fast patch probably keeping the 64bit division is the
way to go.

> > > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <b20788@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c | 7 ++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c
> > > index 641ebc5..b2f8893 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pllv3.c
> > > @@ -203,8 +203,13 @@ static unsigned long clk_pllv3_av_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > >  	u32 mfn = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_NUM_OFFSET);
> > >  	u32 mfd = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_DENOM_OFFSET);
> > >  	u32 div = readl_relaxed(pll->base) & pll->div_mask;
> > > +	s64 temp64 = parent_rate;
> > Why are you using a signed type here? do_div used unsigned anyhow IIRC.
> > 
> I use u64 before, but when I did V2 patch, I notice that all the div used
> in this file are using a s64, so I change it to s64 to keep them aligned,
> so which one is the decent one?
Looking at the implementation of do_div it used unsigned math. So better
use u64 and change the other variables to u64, too (in a separate
patch).

Best regards
Uwe

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