From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/29] drm/i915: program iCLKIP on Lynx Point
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:26:40 +0100
Message-ID: <1334564816_6152@CP5-2952>
References: <1334347745-11743-1-git-send-email-eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
	<1334347745-11743-25-git-send-email-eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
	<20120415234911.GE3982@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<CAC7Lmnur+MenDREAFKQZsVtVi-5T2AQ_YAh+DOQ1aSznbQ301Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCA09E762
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC7Lmnur+MenDREAFKQZsVtVi-5T2AQ_YAh+DOQ1aSznbQ301Q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@dodonov.net>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:44:15 -0300, Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@dodonov.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 20:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > I'm honestly not too happy with this table, because somewhere in there
> > we'll have an annoying type, and there's almost zero chance we'll ever
> > find that. So I prefer if we can replicate the pixel clock computation
> > from some stupid excel sheet ...
> >
> 
> The latest specs say that the table is the recommended way for configuring
> known clocks settings, for both iCLKIP and WR PLL, and the
> algorithm/formula should be used as fallback only.

Which implies that they do not match the values generated by the
algorithm. If you are going to keep the table, at least trim it so that
we aren't wasting bytes in unused precised. And split into the distinct
auxdivider, etc.
 
> But I'll add them as well. One never knows when a new and previously
> unthinkable mode pops up :).

Indeed. I'd throw it back at the hardware people, what are they doing in
kilobytes of data that can't be down in a few bytes of algorithm?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre