On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:35:07AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:47 AM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 09:31:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > > Either you have to add them here (e.g. "hd720p50" and "hd720p60"), or > > > > > > > > > handle them through "@". The latter would impact "[PATCH v1 > > > > > > > > > 09/35] drm/modes: Move named modes parsing to a separate function", as > > > > > > > > > currently a named mode and a refresh rate can't be specified both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the former would make more sense. It simplifies a bit the > > > > > > > > parser, and we're going to use a named mode anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As "[PATCH v1 34/35] drm/modes: Introduce the tv_mode property as a > > > > > > > > > command-line option" uses a separate "tv_mode" option, and not the main > > > > > > > > > mode name, I think you want to add them here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a separate story I think, we could have a named mode hd720p50, > > > > > > > > which would be equivalent to 1280x720,tv_mode=hd720p > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where's the field rate in "1280x720,tv_mode=hd720p"? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, sorry I meant 1280x720@50,tv_mode=hd720p > > > > > > > > > > Above you said "I think the former would make more sense", so that > > > > > should be "1280x720,tv_mode=hd720p50"? > > > > > > > > No, 720p at 50Hz would be either hd720p50 or 1280x720@50,tv_mode=hd720p > > > > and 60Hz would be hd720p60 or 1280x720@60,tv_mode=hd720p > > > > > > I disagree: hd720p50 and hd720p60 are different TV modes. > > > > I agree, and I don't see how that command-line doesn't express that? > > Oh, I see what you mean: yes, it expresses that. > But it is inconsistent with the NTSC/PAL/SECAM/hd{480,576}[ip] modes, > where the TV mode specifies both number of lines and frame rate. Only if we're using a named mode, and naming is hard :) Honestly, I'd be inclined to drop the hd* for now from this series. I don't have a hardware to test it with, for some we don't even have drivers that could implement these modes, we don't have a spec to work from, it looks like a recipe for failure :) Maxime