From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Jackson Subject: Re: Flicker-free boot in DRM Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:59:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4EAEF001.7050406@redhat.com> References: <4EAED35A.4040307@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E199E8AB for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Keith Packard Cc: "drivers, Intel" List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On 10/31/11 2:43 PM, Keith Packard wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:56:58 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > >> Yeah, it won't be precise. That's why there's PLL search code at all, >> and why it has a fuzz factor for finding "good enough". > > Right, so we'll need a similar fuzz factor when deciding whether we > actually need to flip modes or not. Makes me concerned that we'll be > effectively ignoring minor changes in the mode, which will make tweaking > dot clocks impossible. I don't see why we'd need to use the same equality operator everywhere. The case of "is userspace asking for a fine-tune" seems clearly distinguishable from "are the current panel timings close enough to what EDID asked for". - ajax