On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:47:13PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > Hi Ville. > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:34:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > A lot of the panel drivers put bogus looking values into > > mode.clock. This series replaces the bogus values with > > mode.vrefresh*mode.htotal*mode.vtotal. > > I think you got it wrong.... > The few I sampled I would rather say that the clock > specified was the one that was possible with the present > HW and the refresh rate was then set to what was attempted. > > Example: > chunghwa_claa101wb01_mode > > clock is 69300 - which looks like a value you could configure > in HW. It not not a nive round value. > refresh is 60, which looks like the refresh value that was attempted. > > So unless there is a big difference between the > calcualted refresh (based on the specifed clock), > and the specified clock it should be assumed that clock is OK. > And it is OK to drop refresh. > > This is my take on it - but you based your patches on refresh. > So maybe you have a better rationale to do so? No. I just blindly converted everything and posted the patches so people can tell me which way to go. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
