[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP9ODKoyhkTA2=MR44LJ24OYTJaWrtg9vT=14vnYNnuuSDRe1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:34:52 -0300
From: Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador@...ystems.com.br>
To: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc: "Ken.Lin" <ken.lin@...antech.com>, Jason Moss <jason.moss@....com>,
"Peter.Chiang" <peter.chiang@...antech.com>,
"emil@...esaudio.com" <emil@...esaudio.com>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"sboyd@...eaurora.org" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Peter.Stretz" <peter.stretz@...antech.com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Akshay Bhat <akshay.bhat@...esys.com>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL
rate formula
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
And what will be done regarding 4.8? Is the faulty change to be
reverted or this patches will be backported?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
Powered by blists - more mailing lists