From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org Subject: [Bug 76564] [AMD Fusion E-350] HDMI refresh rates doesn't match expectations Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:18:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1688301337==" Return-path: Received: from culpepper.freedesktop.org (unknown [131.252.210.165]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B186E695 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1688301337== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1396019897.Cf35DA680.5446"; charset="us-ascii" --1396019897.Cf35DA680.5446 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:18:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76564 --- Comment #25 from jeroen --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > (In reply to comment #21) > > > (In reply to comment #20) > > > > > > > > When I look at the xrandr output I wonder if the reference frequency is not > > > > 75MHz for fgrlx? Can the reference even change is this not fixed by the > > > > hardware? > > > > > > As far as I know, it's fixed. I'm not really sure what fglrx is doing. > > > Anyway, it's probably easier to just fix the open source driver. > > > > > > the modes are: > > > 1920x1080 (0x55) 148.5MHz +HSync +VSync *current +preferred > > > h: width 1920 start 2448 end 2492 total 2640 skew 0 clock > > > 56.2KHz > > > v: height 1080 start 1084 end 1089 total 1125 clock > > > 50.0Hz > > > > > > 1920x1080 (0x5a) 74.2MHz +HSync +VSync > > > h: width 1920 start 2558 end 2602 total 2750 skew 0 clock > > > 27.0KHz > > > v: height 1080 start 1084 end 1089 total 1125 clock > > > 24.0Hz > > > > > > and the driver ends up calculating the dividers as such: > > > > > > for 148.5MHz target clock: > > > (100Mhz * 23.8) / (2 * 8) = 148.75Mhz > > > > > > for 74.2MHz target clock: > > > (100Mhz * 23.7) / (2 * 16) = 74.0625Mhz > > > > > > One would need to tweak radeon_compute_pll_avivo() in radeon_display.c to > > > try and get dividers that are closer to the target clock. > > > > Isn't that what the OSS driver is currently doing? If you look in the post > > history those are the exact values that are currently being used > > The problem is that the frequencys are exact enough so that the display > device (Monitor/TV/Whatever) accepts them, but not 100% precise. > > E.g. for the 50Hz mode we wanted 148.5MHz pixel clock, but got 148.75Mhz > instead. And for the 24Hz mode we wanted 74.2MHz but got 74.0625Mhz instead. > > So as Alex said somebody would need to dig into that and try to improve the > numbers without toasting the hardware. So that would mean for example using fb=29.7 Ref=2 post=10? Or would that fry the hardware? Why must it exactly match? Because for fgrlx it seems roughly 30% higher than needed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --1396019897.Cf35DA680.5446 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:18:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

Comment # 25 on bug 76564 from
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #23)
> > (In reply to comment #21)
> > > (In reply to comment #20)
> > > >  
> > > > When I look at the xrandr output I wonder if the reference frequency is not
> > > > 75MHz for fgrlx? Can the reference even change is this not fixed by the
> > > > hardware?
> > > 
> > > As far as I know, it's fixed.  I'm not really sure what fglrx is doing. 
> > > Anyway, it's probably easier to just fix the open source driver.
> > > 
> > > the modes are:
> > >   1920x1080 (0x55)  148.5MHz +HSync +VSync *current +preferred
> > >         h: width  1920 start 2448 end 2492 total 2640 skew    0 clock  
> > > 56.2KHz
> > >         v: height 1080 start 1084 end 1089 total 1125           clock  
> > > 50.0Hz
> > > 
> > >   1920x1080 (0x5a)   74.2MHz +HSync +VSync
> > >         h: width  1920 start 2558 end 2602 total 2750 skew    0 clock  
> > > 27.0KHz
> > >         v: height 1080 start 1084 end 1089 total 1125           clock  
> > > 24.0Hz
> > > 
> > > and the driver ends up calculating the dividers as such:
> > > 
> > > for 148.5MHz target clock:
> > > (100Mhz * 23.8) / (2 * 8) = 148.75Mhz
> > > 
> > > for 74.2MHz target clock:
> > > (100Mhz * 23.7) / (2 * 16) = 74.0625Mhz
> > > 
> > > One would need to tweak radeon_compute_pll_avivo() in radeon_display.c to
> > > try and get dividers that are closer to the target clock.
> > 
> > Isn't that what the OSS driver is currently doing? If you look in the post
> > history those are the exact values that are currently being used
> 
> The problem is that the frequencys are exact enough so that the display
> device (Monitor/TV/Whatever) accepts them, but not 100% precise.
> 
> E.g. for the 50Hz mode we wanted 148.5MHz pixel clock, but got 148.75Mhz
> instead. And for the 24Hz mode we wanted 74.2MHz but got 74.0625Mhz instead.
> 
> So as Alex said somebody would need to dig into that and try to improve the
> numbers without toasting the hardware.

So that would mean for example using fb=29.7   Ref=2   post=10?

Or would that fry the hardware?
Why must it exactly match? Because for fgrlx it seems roughly 30% higher than
needed


You are receiving this mail because:
  • You are the assignee for the bug.
--1396019897.Cf35DA680.5446-- --===============1688301337== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel --===============1688301337==--