On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:36:47PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 10/21/2024, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 02:44:43PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> >> +static int it6263_bridge_atomic_check(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> >> + struct drm_bridge_state *bridge_state,
> >> + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> >> + struct drm_connector_state *conn_state)
> >> +{
> >> + struct drm_display_mode *mode = &crtc_state->adjusted_mode;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + ret = drm_atomic_helper_connector_hdmi_check(conn_state->connector,
> >> + conn_state->state);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + return mode->clock > MAX_PIXEL_CLOCK_KHZ ? -EINVAL : 0;
> >
> > drm_atomic_helper_connector_hdmi_check will already make that check, so
> > it's redundant.
>
> MAX_PIXEL_CLOCK_KHZ is 150MHz. With 150MHz pixel clock rate, we'll get
> 150MHz HDMI character rate for 8bpc and 187.5MHz HDMI character rate
> for 10bpc, both are lower than MAX_HDMI_TMDS_CHAR_RATE_HZ = 225MHz.
I guess? I have no idea how that's relevant though. Where are those
constraints coming from, and why aren't you checking for them in
tmds_char_rate_valid?
> So, it looks like pixel clock rate is the bottleneck.
The bottleneck to what?
> Remove drm_atomic_helper_connector_hdmi_check() or keep this as-is?
No, like I said, remove the final check for mode->clock.
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
