[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150905083107.GK21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:31:08 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
Yakir Yang <ykk@...k-chips.com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@...escale.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Jon Nettleton <jon.nettleton@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] drm: bridge/dw_hdmi: adjust pixel clock values in N
calculation
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 07:03:11PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> AKA: just replace your entire "compute_n" function with:
>
> return (128 * freq) / 1000;
>
> ...and it's 100% simpler _and_ gets you a (marginally) better rate
> (assuming you really have 22.175000). If it was just about a
> 32000.222 vs 32000 I'd not be saying anything right now. It's about
> adding complexity.
No. It doesn't work for all cases. Do the calculations for every
sample rate in those tables in the HDMI spec, and you'll find out
why.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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