lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:28:15 +0530
From:   Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:     Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-drm <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: da850: specify the maximum bandwidth for tilcdc

On Monday 28 November 2016 01:12 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 28/11/16 07:24, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Friday 25 November 2016 09:07 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> It has been determined that the maximum resolution supported correctly
>>> by tilcdc rev1 on da850 SoCs is 800x600@60. Due to memory throughput
>>> constraints we must filter out higher modes.
>>>
>>> Specify the max-bandwidth property for the display node for
>>> da850-based boards.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index 8e30d9b..9b7c444 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@
>>>  			compatible = "ti,da850-tilcdc";
>>>  			reg = <0x213000 0x1000>;
>>>  			interrupts = <52>;
>>> +			max-bandwidth = <28800000>;
>>
>> If this is effectively the max pixel clock that the device supports,
>> then why not use the datasheet specified value of 37.5 MHz (Tc = 26.66 ns).
> 
> There's a separate property for max-pixelclock. This one is maximum
> pixels per second (which does sound almost the same), but the doc says
> it's about the particular memory interface + LCDC combination.

DA850 supports both mDDR and DDR2, at slightly different speeds. So
memory bandwidth limitation is also board specific. This should probably
move to board file.

But I would like to know why using max-pixelclock is not good enough.
Have experiments shown that LCDC on DA850 LCDK underflows even if pixel
clock is below the datasheet recommendation?

Thanks,
Sekhar

Powered by blists - more mailing lists