On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 06:34:25PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 April 2016 05:27 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>Then fix adjusted_mode to have the timings in terms of txbyteclkhs > >>>>already. Problem solved. > >>>I let Ville convince me there would be problems with that. Ville, care > >>>to fill in the details? > >>If we change them too hard the accurate vblank timestamp stuff will be > >>upset. But then we only need to adjust horizontal timings for dsi, > >>whereas on gen5+ the vblank ts code uses the line counter (i.e. > >>vertical timings) only. > >> > >>If it's just that it should work, and I don't think we have any other > >>users of the adjusted_mode. > >Ok, I was wrong and we obviously need the right dotclock to compute > >linedur_ns correctly in drm_calc_timestamping_constants(). So either > >we adjust the dotclock of adjusted_mode too (imo makes most sense), or > >we need yet another mode somewhere and use that for dsi cross checking > >(real ugly imo). More I missed? > Another point to be considered: > And we program hsync, hfp and hbp in terms of txbyteclkhs to port register, > which are not part of adjusted_mode. > So for BXT DSI, we have to store them interms of txbyteclkhs and compare > with hsync, hfp and hbp read from HW?? Yeah that's my idea. Plus we should probably store txbyteclkhs somewhere, too. Or at least we need to adjust the clock in adjusted_mode to match txbyteclkhs, otherwise the vblank ts code goes off the rails. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
