Hi Ville,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:36 PM Ville Syrjala
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The currently listed dotclock disagrees with the currently
> listed vrefresh rate. Change the dotclock to match the vrefresh.
>
> Someone tell me which (if either) of the dotclock or vreresh is
> correct?
>
> Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
> index 5ce1328fd7dc..6b48c02af112 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
> @@ -3368,7 +3368,7 @@ static const struct panel_desc urt_umsh_8596md_parallel = {
> };
>
> static const struct drm_display_mode vl050_8048nt_c01_mode = {
> - .clock = 33333,
> + .clock = 34540,
I don't have access to hardware to test this change at the moment, but
looking at the panel datasheet I see that 34.54MHz is still inside the
valid range:
Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
