Message ID | 20220217082954.2967889-14-s.hauer@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | drm/rockchip: RK356x VOP2 support | expand |
17.02.2022 11:29, Sascha Hauer пишет: > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > Jitter was improved by lowering the MPLL bandwidth to account for high > frequency noise in the rk3288 PLL. In each case MPLL bandwidth was > lowered only enough to get us a comfortable margin. We believe that > lowering the bandwidth like this is safe given sufficient testing. There are no device-trees that use "rockchip,rk3288-cru", AFAICS.. Was this change tested on a non-RK3288 devices?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 05:00:37PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 17.02.2022 11:29, Sascha Hauer пишет: > > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > Jitter was improved by lowering the MPLL bandwidth to account for high > > frequency noise in the rk3288 PLL. In each case MPLL bandwidth was > > lowered only enough to get us a comfortable margin. We believe that > > lowering the bandwidth like this is safe given sufficient testing. > > There are no device-trees that use "rockchip,rk3288-cru", AFAICS.. What do you mean? In my tree I have: arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi:863: compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-cru"; drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c:985:CLK_OF_DECLARE(rk3288_cru, "rockchip,rk3288-cru", rk3288_clk_init); > > Was this change tested on a non-RK3288 devices? Yes, on a rk3568 ;) The patch has been posted back in 2015 and was added to the Rockchip downstream kernel in 2016. I don't know how thoroughly Rockchip tests their kernels, but I assume the patch wouldn't be there if it caused any problems. Sascha
17.02.2022 18:12, Sascha Hauer пишет: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 05:00:37PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 17.02.2022 11:29, Sascha Hauer пишет: >>> From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >>> >>> Jitter was improved by lowering the MPLL bandwidth to account for high >>> frequency noise in the rk3288 PLL. In each case MPLL bandwidth was >>> lowered only enough to get us a comfortable margin. We believe that >>> lowering the bandwidth like this is safe given sufficient testing. >> >> There are no device-trees that use "rockchip,rk3288-cru", AFAICS.. > > What do you mean? In my tree I have: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi:863: compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-cru"; > drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c:985:CLK_OF_DECLARE(rk3288_cru, "rockchip,rk3288-cru", rk3288_clk_init); Oh, it is ARM32, I was looking at ARM64 only. My bad. >> Was this change tested on a non-RK3288 devices? > > Yes, on a rk3568 ;) > > The patch has been posted back in 2015 and was added to the Rockchip > downstream kernel in 2016. I don't know how thoroughly Rockchip tests > their kernels, but I assume the patch wouldn't be there if it caused > any problems. Thank you for the clarification.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi-rockchip.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi-rockchip.c index b48f137334ad6..4f2aff4b512d8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi-rockchip.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi-rockchip.c @@ -181,20 +181,8 @@ static const struct dw_hdmi_mpll_config rockchip_mpll_cfg[] = { static const struct dw_hdmi_curr_ctrl rockchip_cur_ctr[] = { /* pixelclk bpp8 bpp10 bpp12 */ { - 40000000, { 0x0018, 0x0018, 0x0018 }, - }, { - 65000000, { 0x0028, 0x0028, 0x0028 }, - }, { - 66000000, { 0x0038, 0x0038, 0x0038 }, - }, { - 74250000, { 0x0028, 0x0038, 0x0038 }, - }, { - 83500000, { 0x0028, 0x0038, 0x0038 }, - }, { - 146250000, { 0x0038, 0x0038, 0x0038 }, - }, { - 148500000, { 0x0000, 0x0038, 0x0038 }, - }, { + 600000000, { 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000 }, + }, { ~0UL, { 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000}, } };