* 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
* 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
* 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
[parent not found: <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AE@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>]
* 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
* 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
* 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 @ 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
[parent not found: <WM!8b5ef465717800ac4466674b98bb32450dc231d955cd4979ca96fd54828a7c3af7de5f376015ebf046c75f20677161c6!@dgg.advantech.com>]
[parent not found: <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A39613@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>]
* 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
* 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 @ 2016-10-11 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
* 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
* 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 @ 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
* 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
* 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 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
[parent not found: <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390A9@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP>]
* 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
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] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390AF@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP> 2016-10-06 23:26 ` The possible regression in kernel 4.8 - clk: imx: correct AV PLL rate formula Ken.Lin 2016-10-06 23:26 ` Ken.Lin 2016-10-06 23:26 ` 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] <03B5A3CA1724CE4EAC32B27E39292A677FC5A390A9@AUSMAIL1.AUS.ADVANTECH.CORP> 2016-10-06 23:21 ` Ken.Lin 2016-10-06 23:21 ` 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.