Hi, On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 5:33 PM cong yang <yangcong5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 1:11 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 7:25 PM Cong Yang > > <yangcong5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The refresh reported by modetest is 60.46Hz, and the actual measurement > > > is 60.01Hz, which is outside the expected tolerance. > > > > Presumably you've swapped the numbers above? The value reported by > > modetest is 60.01Hz and the actual measurement is 60.46Hz? > > No, the value reported by modetest is 60.46Hz. Indeed. I somehow assumed that the old value of "clock / (htotal * vtotal)" would have been the one that was closer to 60 Hz, but doing the math I agree with you. Specifically: >>> 161600000 / ((1200 + 40 + 20 + 40) * (1920 + 116 + 8 + 12)) 60.46093983837174 >>> 162850000 / ((1200 + 50 + 20 + 50) * (1920 + 116 + 8 + 12)) 60.005453366348306 Thanks for correcting me! -Doug
