lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 06/12] pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 05:24:52PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:44 PM Guru Das Srinagesh
> > <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:42 AM Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -240,8 +240,7 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > >
> > > > > period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > > > c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * state->duty_cycle;
> > > > > - do_div(c, state->period);
> > > > > - duty_cycles = c;
> > > > > + duty_cycles = div64_u64(c, state->period);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This change looks fine, but I wonder if the code directly above it
> > > >
> > > > c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > > c *= state->period;
> > > > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > > period_cycles = c;
> > > >
> > > > might run into an overflow when both the clock rate and the period
> > > > are large numbers.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Seems to me like addressing this would be outside the scope of this
> > > patch series.
> >
> > I think it should be part of the same series, addressing bugs that
> > were introduced
> > by the change to 64-bit period. If it's not getting fixed along with
> > the other regressions,
> > I fear nobody is going to go back and fix it later.
>
> Makes sense, I agree. Would this be an acceptable fix?
>
> Instead of multiplying c and state->period first and then dividing by
> 10^9, first divide state->period by 10^9 and then multiply the quotient
> of that division with c and assign it to period_cycles. Like so:
>
> c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> c *= div_u64(state->period, 1000000000);
> period_cycles = c;
>
> This should take care of overflow not happening because state->period is
> converted from nanoseconds to seconds early on and so becomes a small
> number.

Doesn't that mean that anything below a 1 second period will be clamped
to just 0?

Thierry
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-31 22:51    [W:0.063 / U:7.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site