From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Rottmann Subject: Re: lxfb driver regression Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 12:33:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4824287C.4050300@LiPPERT-AT.de> References: <20080507210836.1eb61b8f@ephemeral> <48230694.5010505@LiPPERT-AT.de> <20080508104808.77f48f41@ephemeral> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuPuu-0004nz-Ls for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 May 2008 03:33:32 -0700 Received: from mail.lippert-at.com ([62.80.22.186] helo=domex.lippertembedded.de) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1JuPut-0001xa-7q for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 May 2008 03:33:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080508104808.77f48f41@ephemeral> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Andres Salomon , jordan.crouse@amd.com Cc: linux-geode@bombadil.infradead.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andres Salomon wrote: > The pixclock that's specified is 17460 (from the olpc dcon table) > [...] Prior to your patch, this was: { 0x00004286, 56250 }, > [...] Your patch adds: { 0x00014170, 57375 }, Yes, of course that was my first idea, too. And this was my motivation for sending you the cut down patch without the > 25 MHz entries. But I'm almost prepared to bet this is not the root of the evil. As I said, this does not explain why the resolution seems to switch to 800x640, because lx_set_clock() does not return any feedback. I somehow doubt you'll get a white screen just by raising the dotclock by 2 % (and getting it _closer_ to the intended value)? And before I wrote my mail yesterday, I checked the dotclock for the 0x00004286 and 0x00014170 PLL values with a scope, and both settings produced a fine signal with the expected frequencies. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, then at least we'd have a solution for this issue. > BTW, where did the intermediate values in your table come from? Took the original table from lxfb_ops.c, everywhere set DIV4 and divided frequency by 4, merged it back into the original table, dropping all lines within 300 kHz of an preexisting setting. I wrote a small script to do this, to avoid typos when mangling the table (assuming the original table was ok). > The LX data book shows the DOTPLL equation (6.14.2.14), but very > little documentation of DIV4 or the usable values below 15MHz. LX Data Book, p. 554: "DIV4: Divide by 4. When set, the PLL output is divided by 4 before clocking the logic." Sounds like a simple divider circuit _behind_ the PLL, so as long as the original frequency is ok, the DIV4-ed should be, too. As I said, I assumed the original table in lxfb_ops.c to contain usable values. And all of the few settings I checked with the scope looked ok. Jordan Crouse wrote: > ... the original value (56.250), which in retrospect is probably > a better choice for ths display. So in case the increased dotclock in fact causes the white screen, it might be cleaner to lower the _requested_ dotclock in the OLPC DCON mode timing to 56.250 MHz instead of cutting out PLL settings. > I don't think we really need divided signals > 24Mhz. Well, in my opinion it would be nice to have some intermediate steps in the available dotclocks. However, I don't actually need those for the 320x240 panel, so I don't care much. Regards, Jens ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone