On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:46:01PM +0530, Shobhit Kumar wrote: > >- UI is a period, so is homogeneous to time (s), but ui_num being in > > s^-1 and ui_den a constant, ui_num/ui_den looks like a frequency. Or > > could it be that UI = ui_den / ui_num? would be confusing, but the > > code below would make more sense. In which case could we have UI = > > ui_num / ui_den? > > I just kept ui_num and ui_den separately to take care of precision > loss, but I see how it is adding to confusion. Actually it is ui_den > / ui_num and we have all computations as 1/UI so it works. I think I > will compute UI directly as UI = (NS_KHZ_RATIO * 1000) /bitrate and > divide by 1000 wherever we use to maintain precision. Sounds ok ? I think just exchanging the two variable names (ui_num and ui_den) should be less work for you and should be enough. It's really just about having ui_num being the UI numerator so the reader is not too surprised > >>+ /* B044 */ > >>+ intel_dsi->hs_to_lp_count = > >>+ CEIL_DIV( > >>+ 4 * tlpx_ui + prepare_cnt * 2 + > >>+ exit_zero_cnt * 2 + 10, > >>+ 8); > > > >The previous was before I tried to look at the spec too closely. Mind > >explaining why we don't look at the HS to LP switch count? ie why HS to > >LP switch cound is always smaller than the LP to HS one? > > Because LP to HS uses exit_zero_count which is generally higher than > clk_zero_count. So just directly used LP to HS which amounts to > saying that switching from HS to LP takes lesser time than switching > from LP to HS. I can/should add code to compute max of the two. This could go to a separate task if you don't have time right now, Thanks for your answers! -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
