Re:Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/rockchip: vop2: fix rk3588 dp+dsi maxclk verification

["Andy Yan" <andyshrk@163.com>]

Hi Quetin,
At 2024-11-14 17:38:56, "Quentin Schulz" <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> wrote:
>Hi Andy,
>
>On 11/14/24 1:50 AM, Andy Yan wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> At 2024-05-06 15:44:36, "Quentin Schulz" <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Heiko,
>>>
>>> On 4/25/24 9:55 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>>>> From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@cherry.de>
>>>>
>>>> The clock is in Hz while the value checked against is in kHz, so
>>>> actual frequencies will never be able to be below to max value.
>>>> Fix this by specifying the max-value in Hz too.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 5a028e8f062f ("drm/rockchip: vop2: Add support for rk3588")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@cherry.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
>>>> index 9bee1fd88e6a2..523880a4e8e74 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
>>>> @@ -1719,7 +1719,7 @@ static unsigned long rk3588_calc_cru_cfg(struct vop2_video_port *vp, int id,
>>>>    		else
>>>>    			dclk_out_rate = v_pixclk >> 2;
>>>>    
>>>> -		dclk_rate = rk3588_calc_dclk(dclk_out_rate, 600000);
>>>> +		dclk_rate = rk3588_calc_dclk(dclk_out_rate, 600000000);
>>>>    		if (!dclk_rate) {
>>>>    			drm_err(vop2->drm, "DP dclk_out_rate out of range, dclk_out_rate: %ld KHZ\n",
>>>
>>> It seems the error message is incorrect as well and should be saying Hz
>>> instead of KHz. (note also the lowercase z).
>> 
>> I think kHz is fine, we can find many siminary usage in drm:
>> 
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> 656:    drm_dbg_core(dev, "crtc %u: clock %d kHz framedur %d linedur %d\n",
>
>The issue is that we print kHz for something that is in Hz, not that we 
>print a value in kHz.
>
>The former is incorrect, the latter is fine. We are in the former 
>scenario here I believe, so it needs to be fixed.

Yes, you are right.

>
>Cheers,
>Quentin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-rockchip mailing list
>Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip