Message-Id: <E1anVtm-0008JS-AB@finisterre>
Date:	Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:40:22 -0700
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Applied "regulator: pwm: Try to avoid voltage error in duty cycle calculation" to the regulator tree

The patch

   regulator: pwm: Try to avoid voltage error in duty cycle calculation

has been applied to the regulator tree at

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git 

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.  

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

>From fd786fb0276a22155058018f76eb4c665d37f170 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:09:48 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: pwm: Try to avoid voltage error in duty cycle
 calculation

In continuous mode of the PWM regulators, the requested voltage
PWM duty cycle is calculated in terms of 100% scale where entire
range denotes 100%. The calculation for PWM pulse ON time(duty_pulse)
is done as:

	duty_cycle = ((requested - minimum) * 100) / voltage_range.

then duty pulse is calculated as
	duty_pulse = (pwm_period/100) * duty_cycle

This leads to the calculation error if we have the requested voltage
where accurate pulse time is possible.
For example: Consider following case
	voltage range is 800000uV to 1350000uV.
	pwm-period = 1550ns (1ns time is 1mV).

	Requested 900000uV.

	duty_cycle = ((900000uV - 800000uV) * 100)/ 1550000
		   = 6.45 but we will get 6.

	duty_pulse = (1550/100) * 6 = 90 pulse time.

90 pulse time is equivalent to 90mV and this gives us pulse time equivalent
to 890000uV instead of 900000uV.

Proposing the solution in which if requested voltage makes the accurate
duty pulse then there will not be any error. On this case, if
(req_uV - min_uV) * pwm_period is perfect dividable by voltage_range
then get the duty pulse time directly.

	duty_pulse = ((900000uV - 800000uV) * 1550)/1550000)
		   = 100

and this is equivalent to 100mV and so final voltage is
(800000 + 100000) = 900000uV which is same as requested,

Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
index f99a6970be29..8e928f23279b 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
@@ -113,18 +113,6 @@ static int pwm_regulator_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *dev)
 	return pwm_is_enabled(drvdata->pwm);
 }
 
-/**
- * Continuous voltage call-backs
- */
-static int pwm_voltage_to_duty_cycle_percentage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int req_uV)
-{
-	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
-	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
-	int diff = max_uV - min_uV;
-
-	return ((req_uV * 100) - (min_uV * 100)) / diff;
-}
-
 static int pwm_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 {
 	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
@@ -139,12 +127,32 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
 	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
 	unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay;
 	unsigned int period = pwm_get_period(drvdata->pwm);
-	int duty_cycle;
+	unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
+	unsigned int diff;
+	unsigned int duty_pulse;
+	u64 req_period;
+	u32 rem;
 	int ret;
 
-	duty_cycle = pwm_voltage_to_duty_cycle_percentage(rdev, min_uV);
+	diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
+
+	/* First try to find out if we get the iduty cycle time which is
+	 * factor of PWM period time. If (request_diff_to_min * pwm_period)
+	 * is perfect divided by voltage_range_diff then it is possible to
+	 * get duty cycle time which is factor of PWM period. This will help
+	 * to get output voltage nearer to requested value as there is no
+	 * calculation loss.
+	 */
+	req_period = req_diff * period;
+	div_u64_rem(req_period, diff, &rem);
+	if (!rem) {
+		do_div(req_period, diff);
+		duty_pulse = (unsigned int)req_period;
+	} else {
+		duty_pulse = (period / 100) * ((req_diff * 100) / diff);
+	}
 
-	ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, (period / 100) * duty_cycle, period);
+	ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, duty_pulse, period);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM: %d\n", ret);
 		return ret;
-- 
2.8.0.rc3

Powered by blists - more mailing lists