[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A096BCB.3030403@atmel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:30:03 +0200
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To: Daniel Glöckner <dg@...ix.com>
CC: linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: atmel_lcdfb: max pixclock check
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
--
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