[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180216155049.r2mc724nfluwrrbe@flea.lan>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:50:49 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@...ronovasrl.com>
Cc: airlied@...ux.ie, wens@...e.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/sun4i: Handle DRM_MODE_FLAG_**SYNC_POSITIVE
correctly
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 07:05:56PM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote:
> > If so, and if remember the captures properly, the sampling would occur
> > right before the rise, and not really around the fall.
> >
> > Would 2/3 be better here?
>
> Yes, you're right, 2/3 phase is better:
>
> 1/3 phase: https://pasteboard.co/H4VehON.png
> 2/3 phase: https://pasteboard.co/H4Veq8a.png
>
> Take a look at the bit in middle(yellow) sampled by clock(blue).
>
> Rising edge is almost in the middle of D0 bit.
>
> >
> > > According to scope captures above on both A20 and A33.
> > > Unfortunately I don't have other boards for the other SoCs to take captures.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I guess we can make that part applicable to all SoCs, we haven't seen
> > any significant differences on those part.
>
> So let's keep:
> - As normal(rising edge) => IO_POL_REG "0x2 => 2/3 phase"
> - As inverted(falling edge) => IO_POL_REG "0x0 => normal phase"
I was actually thinking 1/3 for rising, 2/3 for falling.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists