[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <z363tfhxt3h2rfe3vguwruelggoazdpdsojrjhebon6s6ejs2g@cxgxizho2jxp>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:39:58 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>
Cc: Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...nel.org>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@...data.com>,
Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] imx8mp: first clock propagation attempt (for LVDS)
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 08:05:48PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> Hi Frank!
>
> On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 19:24, Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev> wrote:
> > On 2023-09-18 at 00:39:56 +0200, Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com> wrote:
> > Thank you very much for including me in the discussion. If I understood
> > Maxime correctly, your proposal is close to what he was suggesting in
> > the discussion you referenced. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover the
> > rounding aspect (which you also mentioned in your cover letter and the
> > description for clk_detect_unintended_rate_changes in patch 7. I've been
> > pondering the last three weeks how to find a good solution to this
> > problem, but so far haven't found any.
>
> I think if we stick to the idea of always enforcing the exact "typical
> rate", we cannot avoid physically impossible cases. IMHO, it might make
> sense to add a set_rate() function with a "timing_entry" (e.g. used by
> display_timing.h[1]) to the clock API, which gives a suggestion but also
> defines the "real" boundaries. This would provide a shared parent PLL
> more freedom to provide a satisfying rate for all its children.
It's definitely something we should do, and I've wanted to do that for a
while.
The clock rate is not the only thing we can change though. The usual
trick is to modify the blanking areas to come up with a rate that
matches what the hardware can provide without modifying the framerate.
It belongs more in a KMS helper
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists