Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:56 AM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > AKA: anyone using auto-CTS won't notice any change > > at all. I guess the question is: with Auto-CTS should you pick the > > "ideal" 6272 or a value that allows CTS to be the closest to integral > > as possible. By reading between the lines of the spec, I decided that > > it was slightly more important to allow for an integral CTS. If > > achieving an integral CTS wasn't a goal then the spec wouldn't even > > have listed special cases for any of the clock rates. We would just > > be using the ideal N and Auto-CTS and be done with it. The whole > > point of the tables they list is to make CTS integral. > > > Specification recommends many contradictory things without explicit > prioritization, at least I have not found it. > > So we should relay on our intuition. > > I guess that with auto-cts N we should follow recommendation - I guess > most sinks have been better tested with recommended values. > > So what with non-auto-cts case: > > 1. How many devices do not have auto-cts? how many alternative TMDS > clocks we have? Maybe it is theoretical problem. > > 2. Alternating CTS in software is possible, but quite > complicated/annoying, but at least it will follow recommendation :) It is OK w/ me if we want to drop my patch. With the auto-CTS patch it shouldn't matter anymore. ...but I still wanted to post it to the list for posterity in case it is ever useful for someone else. -Doug _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
