linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/atmel-hlcdc: allow selecting a higher pixel-clock that requested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180824110713.3c801034@bbrezillon>
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:07:13 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/atmel-hlcdc: allow selecting a higher
 pixel-clock that requested

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:55:01 +0200
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:

> But only if the highest pixel-clock frequency lower than requested
> is significantly much less accurate that the lowest frequency higher
> than requested.
> 
> I pulled "10 times" as the discriminator out of the hat, and went with
> that.

Okay, let's go with that until we have a way to properly expose display
tolerance.

> 
> This is useful, if e.g. the target pixel-clock is 65MHz and the sys_clk
> is 132MHz. In this case the highest possible pixel-clock lower than the
> requested 65MHz is 52.8MHz, which is almost 20% off (and outside the
> spec for the panel). The lowest possible pixel-clock higher than 65MHz
> is 66MHz, which is a *much* better match, and only 1.5% off.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/atmel-hlcdc/atmel_hlcdc_crtc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/atmel-hlcdc/atmel_hlcdc_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/atmel-hlcdc/atmel_hlcdc_crtc.c
> index 71c9cd90d2ae..0c2717ed4ac6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/atmel-hlcdc/atmel_hlcdc_crtc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/atmel-hlcdc/atmel_hlcdc_crtc.c
> @@ -116,6 +116,19 @@ static void atmel_hlcdc_crtc_mode_set_nofb(struct drm_crtc *c)
>  		div = DIV_ROUND_UP(prate, mode_rate);
>  		if (ATMEL_HLCDC_CLKDIV(div) & ~ATMEL_HLCDC_CLKDIV_MASK)
>  			div = ATMEL_HLCDC_CLKDIV_MASK;
> +	} else {
> +		int div_low = prate / mode_rate;
> +
> +		if (div_low >= 2 &&
> +		    ((prate / div_low - mode_rate) <
> +		     10 * (mode_rate - prate / div)))
> +			/*
> +			 * At least 10 times better when
> +			 * using a higher frequency than
> +			 * requested, instead of a lower.
> +			 * So, go with that.
> +			 */
> +			div = div_low;
>  	}
>  
>  	cfg |= ATMEL_HLCDC_CLKDIV(div);