On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 01:17:52PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 26.09.22 um 12:34 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > Hi Maxime,
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:17 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:05:48AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > > > +   /* 63.556us * 13.5MHz = 858 pixels */
> > > > 
> > > > I kind of get what the comment wants to tell me, but the units don't add up.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure how it doesn't add up?
> > > 
> > > We have a frequency in Hz (equivalent to s^-1) and a duration in s, so
> > > the result ends up with no dimension, which is to be expected for a
> > > number of periods?
> > 
> > To make the units add up, it should be 13.5 Mpixel/s
> > (which is what a pixel clock of 13.5 MHz really means ;-)
> 
> Sort of. It leaves the time value as a magic number, which obfuscates what's
> happening.
> 
> The unit for htotal is pixels/scanline because if you multiply it with the
> number of scanlines per frame (which is in vtotal), you get pixels/frame.
> Multiplying with the frames per second results in the pixel clock in
> pixels/second.

That's true, but both are true?

> That's a bit much for this comment. Hence, I suggested to remove these
> comments entirely and document the relation among the numbers in a more
> prominent location. The documentation for drm_display_mode would be a good
> place, I guess.

I'm not sure I understand what it's about. It's an explicit requirement
of PAL and NTSC, why would something so specific be in the generic
definition of drm_display_mode?

Maxime