From: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@libero.it>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomba@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jyri Sarha <jyri.sarha@iki.fi>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/tilcdc: fix LCD pixel clock setting
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 22:47:09 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1180006566.16525.1616104029554@mail1.libero.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7df3a270-1cc4-7a71-5e55-49a0dfb2c21f@kernel.org>
> Il 17/03/2021 09:19 Tomi Valkeinen <tomba@kernel.org> ha scritto:
>
>
> On 14/03/2021 17:13, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > As reported by TI spruh73x RM, the LCD pixel clock (LCD_PCLK) frequency
> > is obtained by dividing LCD_CLK, the LCD controller reference clock,
> > for CLKDIV:
> >
> > LCD_PCLK = LCD_CLK / CLKDIV
> >
> > where CLKDIV must be greater than 1.
> >
> > Therefore LCD_CLK must be set to 'req_rate * CLKDIV' instead of req_rate
>
> The above doesn't make sense, the code already sets LCD_CLK to 'req_rate
> * clkdiv', not req_rate.
>
> > and the real LCD_CLK rate must be compared with 'req_rate * CLKDIV' and
> > not with req_rate.
>
> This is true, the code looks at the wrong value.
>
> > Passing req_rate instead of 'req_rate * CLKDIV' to the tilcdc_pclk_diff
> > routine caused it to fail even if LCD_CLK was properly set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@libero.it>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c | 9 +++++----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c
> > index 30213708fc99..02f56c9a5da5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_crtc.c
> > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void tilcdc_crtc_set_clk(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> > struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
> > struct tilcdc_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
> > struct tilcdc_crtc *tilcdc_crtc = to_tilcdc_crtc(crtc);
> > - unsigned long clk_rate, real_rate, req_rate;
> > + unsigned long clk_rate, real_rate, req_rate, clk_div_rate;
> > unsigned int clkdiv;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -211,10 +211,11 @@ static void tilcdc_crtc_set_clk(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> >
> > /* mode.clock is in KHz, set_rate wants parameter in Hz */
> > req_rate = crtc->mode.clock * 1000;
> > -
> > - ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, req_rate * clkdiv);
> > + /* LCD clock divisor input rate */
> > + clk_div_rate = req_rate * clkdiv;
>
> "clk_div_rate" sounds a bit odd to me. Why not lcd_fck_rate, as that's
> the name used later? Or lcd_clk_rate. Or maybe lcd_clk_req_rate...
I prefer lcd_clk_rate.
How about adding an additional patch that changes the variable names to make
the code more readable?
req_rate -> lcd_pclk_rate
clk_rate -> real_lcd_clk_rate
And add a comment to the function which highlights the relationship
LCD_CLK = LCD_PCLK * CLDIV ?
>
> > + ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, clk_div_rate);
> > clk_rate = clk_get_rate(priv->clk);
> > - if (ret < 0 || tilcdc_pclk_diff(req_rate, clk_rate) > 5) {
> > + if (ret < 0 || tilcdc_pclk_diff(clk_div_rate, clk_rate) > 5) {
> > /*
> > * If we fail to set the clock rate (some architectures don't
> > * use the common clock framework yet and may not implement
> >
>
> I think this fix is fine, but looking at the current code, it's calling
> tilcdc_pclk_diff(), but doesn't actually provide pixel clocks to the
> function, but fclk.
Yes, I agree.
Thanks and regards,
Dario
>
> Tomi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-18 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-14 15:13 [PATCH] drm/tilcdc: fix LCD pixel clock setting Dario Binacchi
2021-03-17 8:19 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2021-03-18 21:47 ` Dario Binacchi [this message]
2021-03-19 12:57 ` Jyri Sarha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1180006566.16525.1616104029554@mail1.libero.it \
--to=dariobin@libero.it \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jyri.sarha@iki.fi \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomba@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).