On 5/21/2014 2:25 AM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
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
Yeah. Will fix this
+ /* 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,
Most likely I can do this as well. Will push the updated patch by
sometime tomorrow.
Regards
Shobhit
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
