* Re: atmel_lcdfb: max pixclock check
[not found] <49F1C0E4.9050906@emlix.com>
@ 2009-05-12 12:30 ` Nicolas Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Nicolas Ferre @ 2009-05-12 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Glöckner; +Cc: linux-fbdev-devel, Ben Nizette, Linux Kernel list
Daniel Glöckner :
> Hi,
> in the current Atmel LCD framebuffer driver there is the following check in the
> fb_check_var callback:
>
> if ((PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock) * var->bits_per_pixel / 8) > clk_value_khz) {
> dev_err(dev, "%lu KHz pixel clock is too fast\n",
> PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock));
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> I can't find any constraint like this in the data sheets and application note.
> What I can find is a minimum for clk_value_khz/PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock)
> depending on the display type, scan mode, and interface width.
Indeed, I have just acked a patch from Ben Nizette removing this constrain.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/12/189
> Is the quoted if-statement correct or should it be changed to a minimum clock
> divider check?
We can imagine such a check depending on display type. Patches welcome ;-)
> And while we're at it, is it correct to return -EINVAL here instead of changing
> var->pixclock to the closest supported value?
I do not know... Maybe someone on linux-fb-devel can answer ?
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2009-05-12 12:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <49F1C0E4.9050906@emlix.com>
2009-05-12 12:30 ` atmel_lcdfb: max pixclock check Nicolas Ferre
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.