On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 19:01 +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 | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ >> drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> index 17ffa71..0417423 100644 >> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c >> @@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static int dispc_ovl_calc_scaling(enum omap_plane plane, >> fclk = calc_fclk(channel, in_width, in_height, >> out_width, out_height); >> error = (in_width > maxsinglelinewidth || !fclk || >> - fclk > dispc_fclk_rate()); >> + fclk > dispc_core_clk_rate()); > > The patch is now otherwise fine, but I think it needs some more > renaming. Now the code mixes fclk and core-clk names, which is rather > confusing. I guess the calc_fclk should actually be calc_req_core_clk? > And the fclk variable core_clk (or cclk or something)? > > Tomi > As per TRM dispc_core_clk is also a functional clock, so I think above code should be fine. But, to avoid confusion of names the renaming of fclk, calc_fclk and calc_fclk_five_taps can be done. -- Chandrabhanu Mahapatra Texas Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
