[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB6P189MB056810B266B656706ECF7EAB9CB59@DB6P189MB0568.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 07:59:34 +0000
From: David Binderman <dcb314@...mail.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
CC: "andrzej.hajda@...el.com" <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
"neil.armstrong@...aro.org" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
"rfoss@...nel.org" <rfoss@...nel.org>,
"jonas@...boo.se" <jonas@...boo.se>,
"jernej.skrabec@...il.com" <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
"airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
"daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/fsl-ldb.c:101: possible loss of
information.
Hello there Laurent,
>We could, but I don't think it will make any difference in practice as
>the maximum pixel clock frequency supported by the SoC is 80MHz (per
>LVDS channel). That would result in a 560MHz frequency returned by this
>function, well below the 31 bits limit.
Thanks for your explanation. I have a couple of suggestions for possible improvements:
1. Your explanatory text in a comment nearby. This helps all readers of the code.
2. Might the frequency go up to 300 MHz anytime soon ? The code will stop working then.
In this case, I would suggest to put in a run time sanity check to make sure no 31 bit overflow.
Just a couple of ideas for the code.
Regards
David Binderman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists