On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:22 +0530, Chandrabhanu Mahapatra wrote: >> DISPC_FCLK is incorrectly used as functional clock of DISPC in scaling >> calculations. So, DISPC_CORE_CLK replaces as functional clock of DISPC. >> DISPC_CORE_CLK is derived from DISPC_FCLK divided by an independent DISPC >> divisor LCD. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chandrabhanu Mahapatra <cmahapatra@xxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c | 13 +++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> index d8a1672..1fdac73 100644 >> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> @@ -1761,6 +1761,7 @@ static int dispc_ovl_calc_scaling(enum omap_plane plane, >> dss_feat_get_param_max(FEAT_PARAM_LINEWIDTH); >> const int max_decim_limit = 16; >> unsigned long fclk = 0; >> + unsigned long dispc_core_clk = dispc_mgr_lclk_rate(channel); > > Hmm, I don't think this is correct. dispc_mgr_lclk_rate() returns the > logic clock for the LCD output path. It's not DISPC core clock. > > Tomi > As per the OMAP4 TRM DISPC_CORE_CLK is DISPC_FCLK / LCD factor and dispc_mgr_lclk_rate() exactly does the same. Should we rename the function or have a separate fucntion for dispc_core_clk to avoid confusion? -- Chandrabhanu Mahapatra Texas Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
