* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).