On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:01:14PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:38:16PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:13:28PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > intel_crtc_compute_config() and i9xx_set_pipeconf() attempt to get
> > > > the current pixel clock from requested_mode. requested_mode.clock may
> > > > be totally bogus, so the clock should come from adjusted_mode.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 5 ++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > > index ecb8b52..cab1319 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > > @@ -4124,8 +4124,7 @@ static int intel_crtc_compute_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > >
> > > > if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) {
> > > > /* FDI link clock is fixed at 2.7G */
> > > > - if (pipe_config->requested_mode.clock * 3
> > > > - > IRONLAKE_FDI_FREQ * 4)
> > > > + if (adjusted_mode->clock * 3 > IRONLAKE_FDI_FREQ * 4)
> > >
> > > Note quite: The fdi dotclock is the adjusted mode's clock but with the
> > > pixel multiplier _not_ taken into account. See
> > > ironlake_fdi_compute_config. Maybe we need a fdi_dotclock_from_pipe_config
> > > helper function?
> >
> > Dang those pixel multipliers. I need to study on the topic a bit more.
> > I'm confused whether the pipe is actually pushing out pixels at the
> > non-multiplied rate or the multiplied rate. That's an important detail
> > when we consider the CDCLK vs. pipe pixel rate limitations.
>
> On pch ports the pixel multiplier is in the pch dpll, so I think the data
> pushed over the fdi link isn't multiplied. Iirc I've even bothered with
> some tests, but not sure any more ... I vaguely remember that I've broken
> Chris' ilk+sdvo machine a few times in the process of getting this fleshed
> out ;-)
Right, so at least on SDVO the multiplier is added to keep the SDVO
clock on the above 100 MHz. So the multiplier won't actually affect
the pixel clock.
So could we just make port_clock be the multiplied clock for SDVO
and make adjusted_mode.clock be the actual pixel clock?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
