* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390A9@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
@ 2016-10-06 23:21 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:21 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which=
has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c=
when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of P=
LL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it woul=
d have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel =
4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_c=
orrect_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=3D0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
(?)
@ 2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-10-11 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabio Estevam
Cc: Ken.Lin, Jason Moss, Peter.Chiang, emil, mturquette, sboyd,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, kernel, Akshay Bhat, shawnguo,
linux-clk, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
>
>> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
>> I think the patches should fix the issue.
>
> That's good news. Thanks for testing.
>
> Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
>
> Emil,
>
> Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
And what will be done regarding 4.8? Is the faulty change to be
reverted or this patches will be backported?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-10-11 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabio Estevam
Cc: Ken.Lin, Jason Moss, Peter.Chiang, emil, mturquette, sboyd,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, kernel, Akshay Bhat, shawnguo,
linux-clk, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
>
>> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
>> I think the patches should fix the issue.
>
> That's good news. Thanks for testing.
>
> Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
>
> Emil,
>
> Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
And what will be done regarding 4.8? Is the faulty change to be
reverted or this patches will be backported?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-10-11 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
>
>> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080 at 60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
>> I think the patches should fix the issue.
>
> That's good news. Thanks for testing.
>
> Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
>
> Emil,
>
> Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
And what will be done regarding 4.8? Is the faulty change to be
reverted or this patches will be backported?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
(?)
@ 2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-11 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken.Lin
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
Hi Ken,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
> I think the patches should fix the issue.
That's good news. Thanks for testing.
Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
Emil,
Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-11 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken.Lin
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
Hi Ken,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
> I think the patches should fix the issue.
That's good news. Thanks for testing.
Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
Emil,
Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-11 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Ken,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080 at 60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
> I think the patches should fix the issue.
That's good news. Thanks for testing.
Emil is working on a v3 version of the patch series.
Emil,
Please add Ken Lin on Cc when you submit v3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
[not found] ` <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A39613@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
@ 2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-11 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabio Estevam
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
Hi Fabio,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:38 PM
> To: Ken.Lin
> Cc: shawnguo@kernel.org; kernel@pengutronix.de; sboyd@codeaurora.org;
> mturquette@baylibre.com; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Peter.Stretz; Peter.Chiang;
> Akshay Bhat; Jason Moss; emil@limesaudio.com
> Subject: Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate
> formula
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has
> to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c
> when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
> > The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL
> output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
> > Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would
> have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7
> to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
> >
> > Please check the following URL for the details
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_
> > imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
>
> Do these patches from Emil fix the issue?
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535204.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535203.html
>
> Thanks
With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080@60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
I think the patches should fix the issue.
Ref: /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary
pll5 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_bypass 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_video 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_post_div 1 1 519750000 0 0
pll5_video_div 2 2 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di1_pre_sel 0 0 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di1_pre 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di1_sel 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di1 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di0_pre_sel 0 0 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di0_pre 0 0 173250000 0 0
ldb_di1_sel 1 1 519750000 0 0
ldb_di1_div_3_5 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di1_podf 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di1 2 2 148500000 0 0
ipu2_di0_sel 1 1 148500000 0 0
ipu2_di0 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0_sel 1 1 519750000 0 0
ldb_di0_div_3_5 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0_podf 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0 1 1 148500000 0 0
Ref: kernel debug messages
[ 113.848959] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: mode->hdisplay: 1920
[ 113.857201] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: mode->vdisplay: 1080
[ 113.865421] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: attached to encoder types 0x8
[ 113.874483] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: disp 0: panel size = 1920 x 1080
[ 113.880803] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: Clocks: IPU 264000000Hz DI 75833334Hz Needed 148500000Hz
[ 113.889252] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: Want 148500000Hz IPU 264000000Hz DI 75833334Hz using DI, 75833334Hz
[ 113.898768] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 227500000 want: 519750000
[ 113.908018] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 519750000
[ 113.915886] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 148500000 want: 148500000
[ 113.925050] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 148500000
[ 113.932928] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 519750000 want: 519750000
[ 113.942096] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 519750000
[ 113.949938] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 148500000 want: 148500000
[ 113.959104] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb@020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 148500000
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Thank you
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-11 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabio Estevam
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
SGkgRmFiaW8sDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0K
PiBGcm9tOiBGYWJpbyBFc3RldmFtIFttYWlsdG86ZmVzdGV2YW1AZ21haWwu
Y29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgT2N0b2JlciA2LCAyMDE2IDQ6Mzgg
UE0NCj4gVG86IEtlbi5MaW4NCj4gQ2M6IHNoYXduZ3VvQGtlcm5lbC5vcmc7
IGtlcm5lbEBwZW5ndXRyb25peC5kZTsgc2JveWRAY29kZWF1cm9yYS5vcmc7
DQo+IG10dXJxdWV0dGVAYmF5bGlicmUuY29tOyBsaW51eC1hcm0ta2VybmVs
QGxpc3RzLmluZnJhZGVhZC5vcmc7IGxpbnV4LQ0KPiBjbGtAdmdlci5rZXJu
ZWwub3JnOyBsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBQZXRlci5T
dHJldHo7IFBldGVyLkNoaWFuZzsNCj4gQWtzaGF5IEJoYXQ7IEphc29uIE1v
c3M7IGVtaWxAbGltZXNhdWRpby5jb20NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFRoZSBw
b3NzaWJsZSByZWdyZXNzaW9uIGluIGtlcm5lbCA0LjggLSBjbGs6IGlteDog
Y29ycmVjdCBBViBQTEwgcmF0ZQ0KPiBmb3JtdWxhDQo+IA0KPiBIaSBLZW4s
DQo+IA0KPiBPbiBUaHUsIE9jdCA2LCAyMDE2IGF0IDg6MjYgUE0sIEtlbi5M
aW4gPGtlbi5saW5AYWR2YW50ZWNoLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4gSGksDQo+
ID4NCj4gPiBXZSBmb3VuZCBhIHBvc3NpYmxlIHJlZ3Jlc3Npb24gaXNzdWUg
KG5vdCBzZWVuIGluIGtlcm5lbCA0Ljctc3RhYmxlKSwgd2hpY2ggaGFzDQo+
IHRvIGRvIHdpdGggdGhlIG5ldyBOWFAgY29tbWl0IGJhN2Y0ZjU1N2ViNjdl
ZTIxYzk3OWM4NTM5ZGMxODg2ZjVkNTM0MWMNCj4gd2hlbiB3ZSBkaWQgYSBE
UCB0ZXN0ICgxOTIweDEwODBANjApIHdpdGggY2xvY2sgc291cmNlIFBMTDUu
DQo+ID4gVGhlIERQIGRlc2lyZWQgcGl4ZWwgY2xvY2sgKDE0OC41TUh6IHRo
YXQgaXMgY2FsY3VsYXRlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBpbnB1dCBvZiBQTEwNCj4gb3V0
cHV0IGZyZXF1ZW5jeSkgd291bGQgYmUgY29ycmVjdCBhZ2FpbiB3aGVuIHdl
IHJldmVydGVkIHRoaXMgY29tbWl0Lg0KPiA+IENvdWxkIHlvdSBwbGVhc2Ug
aGVscCBjaGVjayBpZiB0aGUgY29tbWl0IGhhcyB0aGUgc2lkZSBlZmZlY3Qg
c2luY2UgaXQgd291bGQNCj4gaGF2ZSBpbXBhY3RzIG9uIG91ciBvbi1nb2lu
ZyBwcm9qZWN0IHdoZW4gaXQgcmVxdWlyZXMgbW92aW5nIGZyb20ga2VybmVs
IDQuNw0KPiB0byBrZXJuZWwgNC44IG9yIG5ld2VyIHZlcnNpb24/DQo+ID4N
Cj4gPiBQbGVhc2UgY2hlY2sgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBVUkwgZm9yIHRoZSBk
ZXRhaWxzDQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJvcGJveC5jb20vcy83d2M1amRw
OHVubHNpb2IvcG9zc2libGVfcmVncmVzc2lvbl9mb3JfY2xrXw0KPiA+IGlt
eF9jb3JyZWN0X1ZMX1BMTF9yYXRlX2Zvcm11bGEucGRmP2RsPTANCj4gDQo+
IERvIHRoZXNlIHBhdGNoZXMgZnJvbSBFbWlsIGZpeCB0aGUgaXNzdWU/DQo+
IA0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnNwaW5pY3MubmV0L2xpc3RzL2FybS1rZXJuZWwv
bXNnNTM1MjA0Lmh0bWwNCj4gDQo+IGFuZA0KPiANCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z
cGluaWNzLm5ldC9saXN0cy9hcm0ta2VybmVsL21zZzUzNTIwMy5odG1sDQo+
IA0KPiBUaGFua3MNCg0KDQpXaXRoIHRoZSBwYXRjaGVzIGFwcGxpZWQsIHRo
ZSBwaXhlbCBjbG9jayAoMTQ4NTAwMDAwIHJlcXVpcmVkIGZvciAxOTIweDEw
ODBANjApIGlzIGNvcnJlY3QgYXMgd2UgY2hlY2tlZCBpbiBrZXJuZWwgNC43
IGFuZCB0aGUgYWN0dWFsIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHJlc3VsdCBsb29rZWQgZ29v
ZCBhcyB3ZSBleHBlY3RlZC4NCkkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHBhdGNoZXMgc2hvdWxk
IGZpeCB0aGUgaXNzdWUuDQoNClJlZjogL3N5cy9rZXJuZWwvZGVidWcvY2xr
L2Nsa19zdW1tYXJ5IA0KDQogICAgcGxsNSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgICAgICAgICAgMSAgMTAzOTUwMDAwMCAgICAg
ICAgICAwIDANCiAgICAgICBwbGw1X2J5cGFzcyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
ICAgICAgIDEgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAxMDM5NTAwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAg
MA0KICAgICAgICAgIHBsbDVfdmlkZW8gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
MSAgICAgICAgICAgIDEgIDEwMzk1MDAwMDAgICAgICAgICAgMCAwDQogICAg
ICAgICAgICAgcGxsNV9wb3N0X2RpdiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgICAg
ICAgICAgMSAgIDUxOTc1MDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDANCiAgICAgICAgICAg
ICAgICBwbGw1X3ZpZGVvX2RpdiAgICAgICAgICAgIDIgICAgICAgICAgICAy
ICAgNTE5NzUwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAgMA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
IGlwdTJfZGkxX3ByZV9zZWwgICAgICAgICAgIDAgICAgICAgICAgICAwICAg
NTE5NzUwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAgMA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
IGlwdTJfZGkxX3ByZSAgICAgICAgICAgMCAgICAgICAgICAgIDAgICAxNzMy
NTAwMDAgICAgICAgICAgMCAwDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
aXB1Ml9kaTFfc2VsICAgICAgICAgICAwICAgICAgICAgICAgMCAgIDE3MzI1
MDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
ICBpcHUyX2RpMSAgICAgICAgICAgMCAgICAgICAgICAgIDAgICAxNzMyNTAw
MDAgICAgICAgICAgMCAwDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaXB1Ml9kaTBf
cHJlX3NlbCAgICAgICAgICAgMCAgICAgICAgICAgIDAgICA1MTk3NTAwMDAg
ICAgICAgICAgMCAwDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaXB1Ml9kaTBf
cHJlICAgICAgICAgICAwICAgICAgICAgICAgMCAgIDE3MzI1MDAwMCAgICAg
ICAgICAwIDANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBsZGJfZGkxX3NlbCAgICAg
ICAgICAgIDEgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgNTE5NzUwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAg
MA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGxkYl9kaTFfZGl2XzNfNSAgICAg
ICAgICAgMSAgICAgICAgICAgIDEgICAxNDg1MDAwMDAgICAgICAgICAgMCAw
DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbGRiX2RpMV9wb2RmICAgICAg
ICAgICAxICAgICAgICAgICAgMSAgIDE0ODUwMDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDAN
CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBsZGJfZGkxICAgICAgICAg
ICAyICAgICAgICAgICAgMiAgIDE0ODUwMDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDANCiAg
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBpcHUyX2RpMF9zZWwgICAg
ICAgICAgIDEgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgMTQ4NTAwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAg
MA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGlwdTJfZGkw
ICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgICAgICAgICAgMSAgIDE0ODUwMDAwMCAgICAgICAg
ICAwIDANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBsZGJfZGkwX3NlbCAgICAgICAg
ICAgIDEgICAgICAgICAgICAxICAgNTE5NzUwMDAwICAgICAgICAgIDAgMA0K
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGxkYl9kaTBfZGl2XzNfNSAgICAgICAg
ICAgMSAgICAgICAgICAgIDEgICAxNDg1MDAwMDAgICAgICAgICAgMCAwDQog
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbGRiX2RpMF9wb2RmICAgICAgICAg
ICAxICAgICAgICAgICAgMSAgIDE0ODUwMDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDANCiAg
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBsZGJfZGkwICAgICAgICAgICAx
ICAgICAgICAgICAgMSAgIDE0ODUwMDAwMCAgICAgICAgICAwIDANCg0KDQpS
ZWY6IGtlcm5lbCBkZWJ1ZyBtZXNzYWdlcw0KDQpbICAxMTMuODQ4OTU5XSBp
bXgtaXB1djMtY3J0YyBpbXgtaXB1djMtY3J0Yy42OiBpcHVfY3J0Y19tb2Rl
X3NldF9ub2ZiOiBtb2RlLT5oZGlzcGxheTogMTkyMA0KWyAgMTEzLjg1NzIw
MV0gaW14LWlwdXYzLWNydGMgaW14LWlwdXYzLWNydGMuNjogaXB1X2NydGNf
bW9kZV9zZXRfbm9mYjogbW9kZS0+dmRpc3BsYXk6IDEwODANClsgIDExMy44
NjU0MjFdIGlteC1pcHV2My1jcnRjIGlteC1pcHV2My1jcnRjLjY6IGlwdV9j
cnRjX21vZGVfc2V0X25vZmI6IGF0dGFjaGVkIHRvIGVuY29kZXIgdHlwZXMg
MHg4DQpbICAxMTMuODc0NDgzXSBpbXgtaXB1djMgMjgwMDAwMC5pcHU6IGRp
c3AgMDogcGFuZWwgc2l6ZSA9IDE5MjAgeCAxMDgwDQpbICAxMTMuODgwODAz
XSBpbXgtaXB1djMgMjgwMDAwMC5pcHU6IENsb2NrczogSVBVIDI2NDAwMDAw
MEh6IERJIDc1ODMzMzM0SHogTmVlZGVkIDE0ODUwMDAwMEh6DQpbICAxMTMu
ODg5MjUyXSBpbXgtaXB1djMgMjgwMDAwMC5pcHU6IFdhbnQgMTQ4NTAwMDAw
SHogSVBVIDI2NDAwMDAwMEh6IERJIDc1ODMzMzM0SHogdXNpbmcgREksIDc1
ODMzMzM0SHoNClsgIDExMy44OTg3NjhdIGlteC1sZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBz
LWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0X2Nsb2NrOiBub3c6IDIy
NzUwMDAwMCB3YW50OiA1MTk3NTAwMDANClsgIDExMy45MDgwMThdIGlteC1s
ZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBzLWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0
X2Nsb2NrIGFmdGVyOiA1MTk3NTAwMDANClsgIDExMy45MTU4ODZdIGlteC1s
ZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBzLWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0
X2Nsb2NrOiBub3c6IDE0ODUwMDAwMCB3YW50OiAxNDg1MDAwMDANClsgIDEx
My45MjUwNTBdIGlteC1sZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBzLWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAw
MDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0X2Nsb2NrIGFmdGVyOiAxNDg1MDAwMDANClsgIDEx
My45MzI5MjhdIGlteC1sZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBzLWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAw
MDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0X2Nsb2NrOiBub3c6IDUxOTc1MDAwMCB3YW50OiA1
MTk3NTAwMDANClsgIDExMy45NDIwOTZdIGlteC1sZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBz
LWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0X2Nsb2NrIGFmdGVyOiA1
MTk3NTAwMDANClsgIDExMy45NDk5MzhdIGlteC1sZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBz
LWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0X2Nsb2NrOiBub3c6IDE0
ODUwMDAwMCB3YW50OiAxNDg1MDAwMDANClsgIDExMy45NTkxMDRdIGlteC1s
ZGIgMjAwMDAwMC5haXBzLWJ1czpsZGJAMDIwZTAwMDg6IGlteF9sZGJfc2V0
X2Nsb2NrIGFmdGVyOiAxNDg1MDAwMDANCg0KPiANCj4gLS0NCj4gVGhpcyBt
ZXNzYWdlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNjYW5uZWQgZm9yIHZpcnVzZXMgYW5kIGRhbmdl
cm91cyBjb250ZW50IGJ5DQo+IE1haWxTY2FubmVyLCBhbmQgaXMgYmVsaWV2
ZWQgdG8gYmUgY2xlYW4uDQoNClRoYW5rIHlvdQ0KDQoKLS0gClRoaXMgbWVz
c2FnZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBzY2FubmVkIGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGFuZApkYW5nZXJv
dXMgY29udGVudCBieSBNYWlsU2Nhbm5lciwgYW5kIGlzCmJlbGlldmVkIHRv
IGJlIGNsZWFuLgoK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-11 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Fabio,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:38 PM
> To: Ken.Lin
> Cc: shawnguo at kernel.org; kernel at pengutronix.de; sboyd at codeaurora.org;
> mturquette at baylibre.com; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> clk at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Peter.Stretz; Peter.Chiang;
> Akshay Bhat; Jason Moss; emil at limesaudio.com
> Subject: Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate
> formula
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has
> to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c
> when we did a DP test (1920x1080 at 60) with clock source PLL5.
> > The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL
> output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
> > Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would
> have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7
> to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
> >
> > Please check the following URL for the details
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_
> > imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
>
> Do these patches from Emil fix the issue?
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535204.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535203.html
>
> Thanks
With the patches applied, the pixel clock (148500000 required for 1920x1080 at 60) is correct as we checked in kernel 4.7 and the actual measurement result looked good as we expected.
I think the patches should fix the issue.
Ref: /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary
pll5 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_bypass 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_video 1 1 1039500000 0 0
pll5_post_div 1 1 519750000 0 0
pll5_video_div 2 2 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di1_pre_sel 0 0 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di1_pre 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di1_sel 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di1 0 0 173250000 0 0
ipu2_di0_pre_sel 0 0 519750000 0 0
ipu2_di0_pre 0 0 173250000 0 0
ldb_di1_sel 1 1 519750000 0 0
ldb_di1_div_3_5 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di1_podf 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di1 2 2 148500000 0 0
ipu2_di0_sel 1 1 148500000 0 0
ipu2_di0 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0_sel 1 1 519750000 0 0
ldb_di0_div_3_5 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0_podf 1 1 148500000 0 0
ldb_di0 1 1 148500000 0 0
Ref: kernel debug messages
[ 113.848959] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: mode->hdisplay: 1920
[ 113.857201] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: mode->vdisplay: 1080
[ 113.865421] imx-ipuv3-crtc imx-ipuv3-crtc.6: ipu_crtc_mode_set_nofb: attached to encoder types 0x8
[ 113.874483] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: disp 0: panel size = 1920 x 1080
[ 113.880803] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: Clocks: IPU 264000000Hz DI 75833334Hz Needed 148500000Hz
[ 113.889252] imx-ipuv3 2800000.ipu: Want 148500000Hz IPU 264000000Hz DI 75833334Hz using DI, 75833334Hz
[ 113.898768] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 227500000 want: 519750000
[ 113.908018] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 519750000
[ 113.915886] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 148500000 want: 148500000
[ 113.925050] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 148500000
[ 113.932928] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 519750000 want: 519750000
[ 113.942096] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 519750000
[ 113.949938] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock: now: 148500000 want: 148500000
[ 113.959104] imx-ldb 2000000.aips-bus:ldb at 020e0008: imx_ldb_set_clock after: 148500000
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Thank you
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
(?)
@ 2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-06 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken.Lin
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
Hi Ken,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
> The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
> Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
>
> Please check the following URL for the details
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Do these patches from Emil fix the issue?
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535204.html
and
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535203.html
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-06 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken.Lin
Cc: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette, linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk,
linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz, Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat,
Jason Moss, emil
Hi Ken,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
> The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
> Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
>
> Please check the following URL for the details
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Do these patches from Emil fix the issue?
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535204.html
and
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535203.html
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2016-10-06 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Ken,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Ken.Lin <ken.lin@advantech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080 at 60) with clock source PLL5.
> The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
> Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
>
> Please check the following URL for the details
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Do these patches from Emil fix the issue?
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535204.html
and
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg535203.html
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AF@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
@ 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken.Lin
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:21 PM
To: 'shawnguo@kernel.org'; 'kernel@pengutronix.de'; 'sboyd@codeaurora.org'; 'mturquette@baylibre.com'
Cc: 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-clk@vger.kernel.org'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; Peter.Stretz; Peter.Chiang; Akshay Bhat
Subject: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken.Lin=20
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:21 PM
To: 'shawnguo@kernel.org'; 'kernel@pengutronix.de'; 'sboyd@codeaurora.org';=
'mturquette@baylibre.com'
Cc: 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-clk@vger.kernel.org'; 'l=
inux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; Peter.Stretz; Peter.Chiang; Akshay Bhat
Subject: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL r=
ate formula
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which=
has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c=
when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of P=
LL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it woul=
d have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel =
4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_c=
orrect_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=3D0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken.Lin
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:21 PM
To: 'shawnguo at kernel.org'; 'kernel at pengutronix.de'; 'sboyd at codeaurora.org'; 'mturquette at baylibre.com'
Cc: 'linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-clk at vger.kernel.org'; 'linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org'; Peter.Stretz; Peter.Chiang; Akshay Bhat
Subject: The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080 at 60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AE@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
@ 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat, Jason Moss
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula
@ 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ken.Lin @ 2016-10-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawnguo, kernel, sboyd, mturquette
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-kernel, Peter.Stretz,
Peter.Chiang, Akshay Bhat, Jason Moss
Hi,
We found a possible regression issue (not seen in kernel 4.7-stable), which has to do with the new NXP commit ba7f4f557eb67ee21c979c8539dc1886f5d5341c when we did a DP test (1920x1080@60) with clock source PLL5.
The DP desired pixel clock (148.5MHz that is calculated from the input of PLL output frequency) would be correct again when we reverted this commit.
Could you please help check if the commit has the side effect since it would have impacts on our on-going project when it requires moving from kernel 4.7 to kernel 4.8 or newer version?
Please check the following URL for the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wc5jdp8unlsiob/possible_regression_for_clk_imx_correct_VL_PLL_rate_formula.pdf?dl=0
Thank you
Cheers,
Ken Lin
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-11 18:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390A9@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-06 23:21 ` The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula Ken.Lin
2016-10-06 23:21 ` Ken.Lin
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AE@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
2016-10-06 23:37 ` Fabio Estevam
[not found] ` <WM!8b5ef465717800ac4466674b98bb32450dc231d955cd4979ca96fd54828a7c3af7de5f376015ebf046c75f20677161c6!@dgg.advantech.com>
[not found] ` <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A39613@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-11 17:49 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
2016-10-11 18:00 ` Fabio Estevam
2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-11 18:34 ` Otavio Salvador
[not found] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AF@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.