linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] clk: add duty cycle support

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]

Date:   Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:57:38 +0200
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] clk: add duty cycle support

On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 11:27 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:42 PM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
> > Add the possibility to apply and query the clock signal duty cycle ratio.
> > 
> > This is useful when the duty cycle of the clock signal depends on some
> > other parameters controlled by the clock framework.
> > 
> > For example, the duty cycle of a divider may depends on the raw divider
> > setting (ratio = N / div) , which is controlled by the CCF. In such case,
> > going through the pwm framework to control the duty cycle ratio of this
> > clock would be a burden.
> > 
> > A clock provider is not required to implement the operation to set and get
> > the duty cycle. If it does not implement .get_duty_cycle(), the ratio is
> > assumed to be 50%.
> > 
> > This change also adds a new flag, CLK_DUTY_CYCLE_PARENT. This flag should
> > be used to indicate that a clock, such as gates and muxes, may inherit
> > the duty cycle ratio of its parent clock. If a clock does not provide a
> > get_duty_cycle() callback and has CLK_DUTY_CYCLE_PARENT, then the call
> > will be directly forwarded to its parent clock, if any. For
> > set_duty_cycle(), the clock should also have CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for the
> > call to be forwarded
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> > ---
> > The series has been developed to handled the sample clocks provided by
> > audio clock controller of amlogic's A113 SoC. To support i2s modes, this
> > clock need to have a 50% duty cycle ratio, while it should be just one
> > pulse of the parent clock in dsp modes.
> 
> "one pulse" means num = 1, den = the clock rate, right?

No, it would be num = 1, den = divider 

> 
> > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > @@ -66,6 +68,17 @@ struct clk_rate_request {
> >         struct clk_hw *best_parent_hw;
> >  };
> > 
> > +/**
> > + * struct clk_duty - Struture encoding the duty cycle ratio of a clock
> > + *
> > + * @num:       Numerator of the duty cycle ratio
> > + * @den:       Denominator of the duty cycle ratio
> > + */
> > +struct clk_duty {
> > +       unsigned int num;
> > +       unsigned int den;
> 
> So shouldn't both fields be "unsigned long" instead, to match clock rates?
> (Yes, I do know we don't support +4.3 GHz clock rates on 32-bit yet ;-)

Not sure we need to match clock rates, long seems a bit too much.
In the end, all we want a ratio, so a [0 - 1] number. Fraction using unsigned
int already provide a pretty good precision (around 0.0002 ppm with 32bit)

Do you have a use case where you need more than that ?

> 
> Also, you may want to have a higher precision than degrees for the
> phase property when handling pulses.

Is this comment related to this patch ?

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds