No subject

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:08:06PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:57 PM Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:52:25PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> > > I have long suspected that a whole bunch of the "simple" displays
> > > are not simple but contains a display controller and memory.
> > > That means that the speed over the link to the display and
> > > actual refresh rate on the actual display is asymmetric because
> > > well we are just updating a RAM, the resolution just limits how
> > > much data we are sending, the clock limits the speed on the
> > > bus over to the RAM on the other side.
> >
> > IMO even in command mode mode->clock should probably be the actual
> > dotclock used by the display. If there's another clock for the bus
> > speed/etc. it should be stored somewhere else.
> 
> Good point. For the DSI panels we have the field hs_rate
> for the HS clock in struct mipi_dsi_device which is based
> on exactly this reasoning. And that is what I actually use for
> setting the HS clock.
> 
> The problem is however that we in many cases have so
> substandard documentation of these panels that we have
> absolutely no idea about the dotclock. Maybe we should
> just set it to 0 in these cases?

Don't you always have a TE interrupt or something like that
available? Could just measure it from that if no better
information is available?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel