Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] can: bittiming: allow TDC{V,O} to be zero and add can_tdc_const::tdc{v,o,f}_min

[Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon. 16 Aug 2021 at 21:33, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On 16.08.2021 14:25:19, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure, if we talked about the mcp251xfd's tcdo, valid values are
> > > > -64...63.
> > >
> > > Yes! Stefan shed some light on this. The mcp251xfd uses a tdco
> > > value which is relative to the sample point.
> >
> > I don't read the documentation this way....
> >
> > > | SSP = TDCV + absolute TDCO
> > > |     = TDCV + SP + relative TDCO
> > >
> > > Consequently:
> > > | relative TDCO = absolute TDCO - SP
> >
> > In the mcp15xxfd family manual
> > (http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/MCP251XXFD-CAN-FD-Controller-Module-Family-Reference-Manual-20005678B.pdf)
> > in the 2mbit/s data bit rate example in table 3-5 (page 21) it says:
> >
> > | DTSEG1  15 DTQ
> > | DTSEG2   4 DTQ
> > | TDCO    15 DTQ
> >
> > The mcp251xfd driver uses 15, the framework calculates 16 (== Sync Seg+
> > tseg1, which is correct), and relative tdco would be 0:
> >
> > | mcp251xfd_set_bittiming: tdco=15, priv->tdc.tdc=16, relative_tdco=0
> >
> > Here the output with the patched ip tool:
>
> Sorry, the previous output was not using the sample points of the
> example in the data sheet, this is the fixed output:
>
> | 6: mcp251xfd0: <NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP,ECHO> mtu 72 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 10
> |     link/can  promiscuity 0 minmtu 0 maxmtu 0
> |     can <FD,TDC_AUTO> state ERROR-ACTIVE (berr-counter tx 0 rx 0) restart-ms 100
> |           bitrate 500000 sample-point 0.800
> |           tq 25 prop-seg 31 phase-seg1 32 phase-seg2 16 sjw 1 brp 1
> |           mcp251xfd: tseg1 2..256 tseg2 1..128 sjw 1..128 brp 1..256 brp_inc 1
> |           dbitrate 2000000 dsample-point 0.800
> |           dtq 25 dprop-seg 7 dphase-seg1 8 dphase-seg2 4 dsjw 1 dbrp 1
> |           tdco 16
> |           mcp251xfd: dtseg1 1..32 dtseg2 1..16 dsjw 1..16 dbrp 1..256 dbrp_inc 1
> |           tdco 0..127
> |           clock 40000000 numtxqueues 1 numrxqueues 1 gso_max_size 65536 gso_max_segs 65535 parentbus spi parentdev spi0.0

After the discussion I had with Stefan, I assumed mcp251xxfd also
used relative TDCO.  However, in the mcp15xxfd family manual,
Equation 3-10: "Secondary Sample Point" on page 18 states that:

| SSP = TDCV + TDCO

As I commented above, this is the formula of the absolute
TDCO. Furthermore, in the example you shared, TDCO is
16 (absolute), not 0 (relative).

*BUT*, if this is the absolute TDCO, I just do not get how it can
be negative (I already elaborated on this in the past: if you
subtract from TDCV, you are measuring the previous bit...)

Another thing which is misleading to me is that the mcp15xxfd
family manual lists the min and max values for most of the
bittiming parameters but not for TDCO.

Finally, I did a bit of research and found that:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Section_56_Controller_Area_Network_with_Flexible_Data_rate_DS60001549A.pdf

This is *not* the mcp25xxfd datasheet but it is still from
Microship and as you will see, it is mostly similar to the
mcp25xxfd except for, you guessed it, the TDCO.

It reads:
| TDCMOD<1:0>: Transmitter Delay Compensation Mode bits
| Secondary Sample Point (SSP).
| 10 = Auto; measure delay and add CFDxDBTCFG.TSEG1; add TDCO
| 11 = Auto; measure delay and add CFDxDBTCFG.TSEG1; add TDCO
| 01 = Manual; Do not measure, use TDCV plus TDCO from the register
| 00 = Disable

| TDCO<6:0>: Transmitter Delay Compensation Offset bits
| Secondary Sample Point (SSP). Two's complement; offset can be
positive, zero, or negative.
| 1111111 = -64 x SYSCLK
| .
| .
| .
| 0111111 = 63 x SYSCLK
| .
| .
| .
| 0000000 = 0 x SYSCLK

Here, you can clearly see that the TDCO has the exact same range
as the one of the mcp25xxfd but the description of TDCMOD
changes, telling us that:

| SSP = TDCV (measured delay) + CFDxDBTCFG.TSEG1 (sample point) + TDCO

Which means this is a relative TDCO.

I just do not get how two documents from Microchip can have the
TDCO relative range of -64..63 but use a different formula. I am
sorry but at that point, I just do not understand what is going
on with your controller...