[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070910225221.f0eaf22c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:52:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc: sylvain.meyer@...ldonline.fr, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Antonino A. Daplas" <adaplas@....net>,
linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:24:42 +0200 Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> wrote:
> Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
>
> --- a/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c
> @@ -924,10 +920,10 @@ calc_pll_params(int index, int clock, u32 *retm1, u32 *retm2, u32 *retn, u32 *re
> if (m > pll->max_m)
> m = pll->max_m - 1;
> for (testm = m - 1; testm <= m; testm++) {
> - f_out = calc_vclock3(index, m, n, p);
> + f_out = calc_vclock3(index, testm, n, p);
> if (splitm(index, testm, &m1, &m2)) {
> - WRN_MSG("cannot split m = %d\n", m);
> - n++;
> + WRN_MSG("cannot split m = %d\n",
> + testm);
> continue;
> }
> if (clock > f_out)
and... what are the consequences of this miscalculation? I need to know
such things so that I can decide whether a change is needed in 2.6.23. And
2.6.22.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists