On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:12:42PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> +static int
> +mlxsw_sp1_ptp_update_phc_settime(struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock *clock, u64 nsec)
Six words ^^^
What is wrong with "mlxsw_phc_settime" ?
> +{
> + struct mlxsw_core *mlxsw_core = clock->core;
> + char mtutc_pl[MLXSW_REG_MTUTC_LEN];
> + char mtpps_pl[MLXSW_REG_MTPPS_LEN];
> + u64 next_sec_in_nsec, cycles;
> + u32 next_sec;
> + int err;
> +
> + next_sec = nsec / NSEC_PER_SEC + 1;
> + next_sec_in_nsec = next_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +
> + spin_lock(&clock->lock);
> + cycles = mlxsw_sp1_ptp_ns2cycles(&clock->tc, next_sec_in_nsec);
> + spin_unlock(&clock->lock);
> +
> + mlxsw_reg_mtpps_vpin_pack(mtpps_pl, cycles);
> + err = mlxsw_reg_write(mlxsw_core, MLXSW_REG(mtpps), mtpps_pl);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + mlxsw_reg_mtutc_pack(mtutc_pl,
> + MLXSW_REG_MTUTC_OPERATION_SET_TIME_AT_NEXT_SEC,
> + 0, next_sec);
> + return mlxsw_reg_write(mlxsw_core, MLXSW_REG(mtutc), mtutc_pl);
> +}
> +
> +static int mlxsw_sp1_ptp_adjfine(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, long scaled_ppm)
> +{
> + struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock *clock =
> + container_of(ptp, struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock, ptp_info);
> + int neg_adj = 0;
> + u32 diff;
> + u64 adj;
> + s32 ppb;
> +
> + ppb = ptp_clock_scaled_ppm_to_ppb(scaled_ppm);
Now I see why you did this. Nice try.
The 'scaled_ppm' has a finer resolution than ppb. Please make use of
the finer resolution in your calculation. It does make a difference.
> +
> + if (ppb < 0) {
> + neg_adj = 1;
> + ppb = -ppb;
> + }
> +
> + adj = clock->nominal_c_mult;
> + adj *= ppb;
> + diff = div_u64(adj, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +
> + spin_lock(&clock->lock);
> + timecounter_read(&clock->tc);
> + clock->cycles.mult = neg_adj ? clock->nominal_c_mult - diff :
> + clock->nominal_c_mult + diff;
> + spin_unlock(&clock->lock);
> +
> + return mlxsw_sp1_ptp_update_phc_adjfreq(clock, neg_adj ? -ppb : ppb);
> +}
Thanks,
Richard
