On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:22:22PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:09:17PM +0200, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Compute the increase in the DSI clock due to pixel overlap mode in > > a way that's refresh rate agnostic. So far the computation assumed > > a 60Hz refresh rate. And let's switch to round to closest here as > > well since we would like to be as close to the target as possible. > > > > Also toss in a decent comment explaining what we're actually doing > > here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Not totally why being under the target is acceptable? It's a pixel clock, so closer seems better. At least that's what we do elsewhere. There are a bunch of other round ups and downs in the DSI code, and I'm not sure any of those really make sense. Might have to review them all at some point. > But the > conversion from vtotal*60 to clock/htotal looks sound. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
