summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorUwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>2022-04-20 15:12:40 +0300
committerThierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>2022-05-20 17:18:40 +0300
commit615f4e84461b71e5fed01d9f6d9d98ef3dd1d452 (patch)
treed66b85a1e12e2f88f2e26106c1a21b742c98d799 /drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
parent3c173376efc461dc670b02ba2846c2a533491104 (diff)
downloadlinux-615f4e84461b71e5fed01d9f6d9d98ef3dd1d452.tar.xz
pwm: renesas-tpu: Improve precision of period and duty_cycle calculation
Dividing by the result of a division looses precision. Consider for example clk_rate = 33000000 and period_ns = 500001. Then clk_rate / (NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns) has the exact value 16500.033, but in C this evaluates to 16508. It gets worse for even bigger values of period_ns, so with period_ns = 500000001, the exact result is 16500000.033 while in C we get 33000000. For that reason use clk_rate * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC instead which doesn't suffer from this problem. To ensure this doesn't overflow add a safeguard check for clk_rate. Note that duty > period can never happen, so the respective check can be dropped. Incidentally this fixes a division by zero if period_ns > NSEC_PER_SEC. Another side effect is that values bigger than INT_MAX for period and duty_cyle are not wrongly discarded any more. Fixes: 99b82abb0a35 ("pwm: Add Renesas TPU PWM driver") Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c')
-rw-r--r--drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c28
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
index 4aff3870010c..d7311614c846 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
@@ -242,20 +242,29 @@ static void tpu_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
}
static int tpu_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
- int duty_ns, int period_ns, bool enabled)
+ u64 duty_ns, u64 period_ns, bool enabled)
{
struct tpu_pwm_device *tpd = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
struct tpu_device *tpu = to_tpu_device(chip);
unsigned int prescaler;
bool duty_only = false;
u32 clk_rate;
- u32 period;
+ u64 period;
u32 duty;
int ret;
clk_rate = clk_get_rate(tpu->clk);
+ if (unlikely(clk_rate > NSEC_PER_SEC)) {
+ /*
+ * This won't happen in the nearer future, so this is only a
+ * safeguard to prevent the following calculation from
+ * overflowing. With this clk_rate * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC is
+ * not greater than period_ns and so fits into an u64.
+ */
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
- period = clk_rate / (NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns);
+ period = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(clk_rate, period_ns, NSEC_PER_SEC);
/*
* Find the minimal prescaler in [0..3] such that
@@ -292,18 +301,15 @@ static int tpu_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
period >>= 2 * prescaler;
- if (duty_ns) {
- duty = (clk_rate >> 2 * prescaler)
- / (NSEC_PER_SEC / duty_ns);
- if (duty > period)
- return -EINVAL;
- } else {
+ if (duty_ns)
+ duty = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(clk_rate, duty_ns,
+ (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << (2 * prescaler));
+ else
duty = 0;
- }
dev_dbg(&tpu->pdev->dev,
"rate %u, prescaler %u, period %u, duty %u\n",
- clk_rate, 1 << (2 * prescaler), period, duty);
+ clk_rate, 1 << (2 * prescaler), (u32)period, duty);
if (tpd->prescaler == prescaler && tpd->period == period)
duty_only = true;