On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:44:15 -0300, Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni at dodonov.net> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 20:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > I'm honestly not too happy with this table, because somewhere in there > > we'll have an annoying type, and there's almost zero chance we'll ever > > find that. So I prefer if we can replicate the pixel clock computation > > from some stupid excel sheet ... > > > > The latest specs say that the table is the recommended way for configuring > known clocks settings, for both iCLKIP and WR PLL, and the > algorithm/formula should be used as fallback only. Which implies that they do not match the values generated by the algorithm. If you are going to keep the table, at least trim it so that we aren't wasting bytes in unused precised. And split into the distinct auxdivider, etc. > But I'll add them as well. One never knows when a new and previously > unthinkable mode pops up :). Indeed. I'd throw it back at the hardware people, what are they doing in kilobytes of data that can't be down in a few bytes of algorithm? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
