linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 065/192] [PATCH 068/135] pwm: lpc32xx: fix and simplify duty cycle and period calculations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160912152201.671846206@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:59:34 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 065/192] [PATCH 068/135] pwm: lpc32xx: fix and simplify duty cycle and period calculations

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

[ Upstream commit 5a9fc9c666d5d759699cf5495bda85f1da0d747e ]

The change fixes a problem, if duty_ns is too small in comparison
to period_ns (as a valid corner case duty_ns is 0 ns), then due to
PWM_DUTY() macro applied on a value the result is overflowed over 8
bits, and instead of the highest bitfield duty cycle value 0xff the
invalid duty cycle bitfield value 0x00 is written.

For reference the LPC32xx spec defines PWMx_DUTY bitfield description
is this way and it seems to be correct:

 [Low]/[High] = [PWM_DUTY]/[256-PWM_DUTY], where 0 < PWM_DUTY <= 255.

In addition according to my oscilloscope measurements LPC32xx PWM is
"tristate" in sense that it produces a wave with floating min/max
voltage levels for different duty cycle values, for corner cases:

  PWM_DUTY == 0x01 => signal is in range from -1.05v to 0v
  ....
  PWM_DUTY == 0x80 => signal is in range from -0.75v to +0.75v
  ....
  PWM_DUTY == 0xff => signal is in range from 0v to +1.05v

  PWM_DUTY == 0x00 => signal is around 0v, PWM is off

Due to this peculiarity on very long period ranges (less than 1KHz)
and odd pre-divider values PWM generated wave does not remind a
clock shape signal, but rather a heartbit shape signal with positive
and negative peaks, so I would recommend to use high-speed HCLK clock
as a PWM parent clock and avoid using RTC clock as a parent.

The change corrects PWM output in corner cases and prevents any
possible overflows in calculation of values for PWM_DUTY and
PWM_RELOADV bitfields, thus helper macro definitions may be removed.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c |   51 ++++++++++++++++------------------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
@@ -24,9 +24,7 @@ struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip {
 	void __iomem *base;
 };
 
-#define PWM_ENABLE	(1 << 31)
-#define PWM_RELOADV(x)	(((x) & 0xFF) << 8)
-#define PWM_DUTY(x)	((x) & 0xFF)
+#define PWM_ENABLE	BIT(31)
 
 #define to_lpc32xx_pwm_chip(_chip) \
 	container_of(_chip, struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip, chip)
@@ -38,40 +36,27 @@ static int lpc32xx_pwm_config(struct pwm
 	unsigned long long c;
 	int period_cycles, duty_cycles;
 	u32 val;
+	c = clk_get_rate(lpc32xx->clk);
 
-	c = clk_get_rate(lpc32xx->clk) / 256;
-	c = c * period_ns;
-	do_div(c, NSEC_PER_SEC);
-
-	/* Handle high and low extremes */
-	if (c == 0)
-		c = 1;
-	if (c > 255)
-		c = 0; /* 0 set division by 256 */
-	period_cycles = c;
-
-	/* The duty-cycle value is as follows:
-	 *
-	 *  DUTY-CYCLE     HIGH LEVEL
-	 *      1            99.9%
-	 *      25           90.0%
-	 *      128          50.0%
-	 *      220          10.0%
-	 *      255           0.1%
-	 *      0             0.0%
-	 *
-	 * In other words, the register value is duty-cycle % 256 with
-	 * duty-cycle in the range 1-256.
-	 */
-	c = 256 * duty_ns;
-	do_div(c, period_ns);
-	if (c > 255)
-		c = 255;
-	duty_cycles = 256 - c;
+	/* The highest acceptable divisor is 256, which is represented by 0 */
+	period_cycles = div64_u64(c * period_ns,
+			       (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * 256);
+	if (!period_cycles)
+		period_cycles = 1;
+	if (period_cycles > 255)
+		period_cycles = 0;
+
+	/* Compute 256 x #duty/period value and care for corner cases */
+	duty_cycles = div64_u64((unsigned long long)(period_ns - duty_ns) * 256,
+				period_ns);
+	if (!duty_cycles)
+		duty_cycles = 1;
+	if (duty_cycles > 255)
+		duty_cycles = 255;
 
 	val = readl(lpc32xx->base + (pwm->hwpwm << 2));
 	val &= ~0xFFFF;
-	val |= PWM_RELOADV(period_cycles) | PWM_DUTY(duty_cycles);
+	val |= (period_cycles << 8) | duty_cycles;
 	writel(val, lpc32xx->base + (pwm->hwpwm << 2));
 
 	return 0;