Commen=
t # 23
on bug 77009<=
/a>
from Christian K=C3=B6nig
(In reply to comment #=
21)
> Created attachm=
ent 97043 [details]
> 368 and others dmesg
>=20
> >Garrett, please stop trying to merge the patches. Since the initia=
l change is >already upsteram we are going to need to fix it in a separa=
te patch anyway.
>=20
> Sorry. New to this FOSS stuff. OE is a complete OS download with loc=
al
> code not pulling from mainline kernels (from what I can tell). It was
> tricky for me to patch it. I am trying to be transparent so others can
> reproduce my results easily.
No problem at all and keeping it reproducible is indeed a good intention. I
just wanted to avoid that you spend time on unnecessary stuff.
> What I don't understand is the pll numbers go
> up and down, despite having the higher max vals. This concerns me..
Well that is simple to explain. Assum that you have a feedback to ref divid=
er
ratio of 100/11. This ratio can't be reduced any more without lossing
precission.
Now we also assume to the ref divider maximum is 10, so after limiting the =
ref
divider to 10 we end up with a ratio of 90/10. Now 90 to 10 can be reduced
easily to 9/1. So in the end we end up with a far lower ration because of t=
he
reference divider limit.
> Hope it helps.
Yeah, your numbers indeed helped a bit, thanks.