From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7 resend] drm/i915: Add the support of eDP
	on DP-D for Ibex/CPT
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:28:05 +0100
Message-ID: <89k83a$8inni8@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
References: <1276324347-15668-1-git-send-email-zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
	<1276324347-15668-2-git-send-email-zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7A69E78F
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1276324347-15668-2-git-send-email-zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>, eric@anholt.net
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:32:21 +0800, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> From: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
> 
> This one adds support for eDP that connected on PCH DP-D port
> instead of CPU DP-A port, and only DP-D port could be used for eDP.
> 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27220
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Jan-Hendrik Zab <jan@jhz.name>
> Tested-by: Templar <templar@rshc.de>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> ---
[snip]
>  static void
> -intel_dp_compute_m_n(int bytes_per_pixel,
> +intel_dp_compute_m_n(int bpp,
>  		     int nlanes,
>  		     int pixel_clock,
>  		     int link_clock,
>  		     struct intel_dp_m_n *m_n)
>  {
>  	m_n->tu = 64;
> -	m_n->gmch_m = pixel_clock * bytes_per_pixel;
> +	m_n->gmch_m = (pixel_clock * bpp) >> 3;
>  	m_n->gmch_n = link_clock * nlanes;
>  	intel_reduce_ratio(&m_n->gmch_m, &m_n->gmch_n);
>  	m_n->link_m = pixel_clock;

This rounds the gmch_m down. Is this correct? And how close to overflow
is pixel_clock today?
-ickle

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre