Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:40:07 -0600
From:   Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
To:     Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
Cc:     linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adam Ford-BE <aford@...conembedded.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] clk: vc5: Add support for optional load capacitance

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 12:02 PM Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> On 09/01/21 04:00, Adam Ford wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:49 PM Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Adam,
> >>
> >> On 06/01/21 18:39, Adam Ford wrote:
> >>> There are two registers which can set the load capacitance for
> >>> XTAL1 and XTAL2. These are optional registers when using an
> >>> external crystal.  Parse the device tree and set the
> >>> corresponding registers accordingly.
> >>
> >> No need to repeat the first 2 sentences, they are already in patch 1.
> >
> > The reason I did that was because if someone does a git log on the
> > individual file, they'd see the comment.  While it's redundant not, it
> > might not be as obvious in the future when looking back.   Not
> > everyone reviews the history of the binding, but the source files' git
> > logs usually have some value.   However, if you want me to drop it or
> > rephrase it, I can do that.
>
> Makes sense, I had never considered that before.
>
> >>> +static int vc5_map_cap_value(u32 femtofarads)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     int mapped_value;
> >>> +
> >>> +     /* The datasheet explicitly states 9000 - 25000 */
> >>> +     if ((femtofarads < 9000) || (femtofarads > 25000))
> >>> +             return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> +     /* The lowest target we can hit is 9430, so exit if it's less */
> >>> +     if (femtofarads < 9430)
> >>> +             return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +     /*
> >>> +      * According to VersaClock 6E Programming Guide, there are 6
> >>> +      * bits which translate to 64 entries in XTAL registers 12 and
> >>> +      * 13. Because bits 0 and 1 increase the capacitance the
> >>> +      * same, some of the values can be repeated.  Plugging this
> >>> +      * into a spreadsheet and generating a trendline, the output
> >>> +      * equation becomes x = (y-9098.29) / 216.44, where 'y' is
> >>> +      * the desired capacitance in femtofarads, and x is the value
> >>> +      * of XTAL[5:0].
> >>> +      * To help with rounding, do fixed point math
> >>> +      */
> >>> +     femtofarads *= 100;
> >>> +     mapped_value = (femtofarads - 909829) / 21644;
> >>
> >> Thanks for the extensive comment, but I am confused. Not by your code
> >> which is very clean and readable, but by the chip documentation
> >> (disclaimer: I haven't read it in full depth).
> >
> > I was confused too since the datasheet and programmers manual differ a bit.
> >>
> >> The 5P49V6965 datasheet at page 17 clearly states capacitance can be
> >> increased in 0.5 pF steps. The "VersaClock 6E Family Register
> >> Descriptions and Programming Guide" at page 18 shows a table that allows
> >> 0.43 pF. Can you clarify how the thing works?
> >
> > I used the Versaclock 6E doc which is based on the following:
> >
> > BIT 5 - Add 6.92pF
> > BIT 4 - Add 3.46pF
> > BIT 3 - Add 1.73pF
> > BIT 2 - Add 0.86pF
> > Bit 1 - Add 0.43pF
> > Bit 0 - Add 0.43pF
> >
> > Because the Datasheet starts at 9pF, the math I used, assumes these
> > numbers are added to 9pF.
> > Because the datasheet shows the increments are in .5pF increments, the
> > 430nF seems close.  The datasheet shows 9pF - 25pF and based on the
> > programmer table, we could get close to 25pF by enabling all bits and
> > adding 9pF, however the math doesn't quite hit 25pF.
> >
> > For what it's worth I needed around 11.5pF, and with this patch, the
> > hardware engineer said our ppm went from around 70 ppm to around 4ppm.
>
> Did he measure what happens if you set the register according to the 0.5
> pF interpretation? Does it improve? I understand the difference is
> probably olwer than the noise, but who knows.
>
> >>> +
> >>> +     /*
> >>> +      * The datasheet states, the maximum capacitance is 25000,
> >>> +      * but the programmer guide shows a max value is 22832,
> >>> +      * so values higher values could overflow, so cap it.
> >>> +      */
> >>
> >> The 22832 limit is if you assume 0.43 pF steps. Assuming 0.5 pF steps
> >> leads to 25000. Now I am more confused than before.
> >
> > I agree.  It would be nice to get some clarification from Renesas.
>
> Definitely. Do you have access to some support from them?

Luca,

We reached out to  Renesas with the following questions:

1)
I'm seeing a discrepancy between the datasheet and programming guide
we have for the Versaclock 6e in regard to the crystal load
programming registers.  The datasheet for the 5P49V6965A000NLGI
indicates a 9pF minimum with 0.5pF steps, while the programming guide
says that the lower two register bits both add 0.43pF, which would
make the equation:

Ci = 9pF + 0.43pF * XTAL[5:1] instead of
Ci = 9pF + 0.5pF * XTAL[5:0] as is published in the datasheet.

2)  The programming guide shows that the default setting is 01b, but
the note says it's reserved, use D1 D0 = 00.  Can you confirm that we
should set switch mode to 00 instead of the default 01?

And we got the following answers:

1)
     The first one with 0.43pF steps is the correct one. Ci = 9pF +
0.43pF * XTAL[5:1]
     0.5pF steps was the design target.  When measuring actual
silicon, we found 0.43pF steps.

     There are 6 bits reserved for the CL setting but bits 0 and 1
have the same 0.43pF step.  So it is actually 5 bits with an extra LSB
of 0.43pF.

2)
      Please use D1 D0 = 01.   The “00” is a typo…..

Based on the above response I think we should always assume XTAL bit 0
is 0, and only use XTAL[5:1] which should make the math go easier,
because the desired value in femtofarads would just be offset by 9000
and divided by 430 and that value would be shifted 3 places instead fo
two, and the  fixed-point math calculation can go away.

In addition to that, I would also need to make sure that D0 is set to
1, so instead of just writing the shifted XTAL value, I would also
have to do a logic OR with 1 to set the low bit.

I talked with the hardware guys from work who also suggested that we
always write the same value to X1 and X2, so I can remove the X1 and
X2 references from the bindings.

Does that work for you?


adam
> I don't think I have, but I can ask next week.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Luca

Powered by blists - more mailing lists