[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5CVggufx2U0pZUXd1o=i36Jo-c1B=hgFcSaWeM+=oagaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:00:53 -0300
From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To: "Ken.Lin" <ken.lin@...antech.com>
Cc: "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"sboyd@...eaurora.org" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Peter.Stretz" <peter.stretz@...antech.com>,
"Peter.Chiang" <peter.chiang@...antech.com>,
Akshay Bhat <akshay.bhat@...esys.com>,
Jason Moss <jason.moss@....com>,
"emil@...esaudio.com" <emil@...esaudio.com>
Subject: Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL
rate formula
Hi Ken,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@...antech.com> wrote:
> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
> I think the patches should fix the issue.
That's good news. Thanks for testing.
Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
Emil,
Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists