Re: [PATCH 00/13] imx8mp: first clock propagation attempt (for LVDS)

[Maxime Ripard]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 08:05:48PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> Hi Frank!
> 
> On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 19:24, Frank Oltmanns <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2023-09-18 at 00:39:56 +0200, Benjamin Bara <bbara93@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thank you very much for including me in the discussion. If I understood
> > Maxime correctly, your proposal is close to what he was suggesting in
> > the discussion you referenced. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover the
> > rounding aspect (which you also mentioned in your cover letter and the
> > description for clk_detect_unintended_rate_changes in patch 7. I've been
> > pondering the last three weeks how to find a good solution to this
> > problem, but so far haven't found any.
> 
> I think if we stick to the idea of always enforcing the exact "typical
> rate", we cannot avoid physically impossible cases. IMHO, it might make
> sense to add a set_rate() function with a "timing_entry" (e.g. used by
> display_timing.h[1]) to the clock API, which gives a suggestion but also
> defines the "real" boundaries. This would provide a shared parent PLL
> more freedom to provide a satisfying rate for all its children.

It's definitely something we should do, and I've wanted to do that for a
while.

The clock rate is not the only thing we can change though. The usual
trick is to modify the blanking areas to come up with a rate that
matches what the hardware can provide without modifying the framerate.

It belongs more in a KMS helper

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature