<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [HSW] linux next-20170407+ boots to a blank screen"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100755#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [HSW] linux next-20170407+ boots to a blank screen"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100755">bug 100755</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com" title="Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>"> <span class="fn">Dhinakaran Pandiyan</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Maarten Lankhorst from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=100755#c6">comment #6</a>)
<span class="quote">> Curious thing..
>
> >>> 2428257. / 8388608
> 0.28947
>
> >>> 302776. / 1048576
> 0.28874
>
> >>> 2428257. / 8
> 303532.125
>
> So this might be some rounding error?
>
> same for link_m/n, expected 33725, got 33641.</span >
33641/131072=0.2567 is closer to the original pixel_clock/link_clock ratio
(69300/270000=0.2567) than 33725/131072=0.2573.
Also, in the attachment (next-20170324 with fastboot=1, shows suspend/resume,
works fine) bios programs link_m: 134903 whereas driver programs link_m:
134567. Because both work fine, I guess the problem is elsewhere.
I wonder if we should not be scaling down data m/n at all. The patch scales
both data and link m/n to workaround a dongle issue, we could probably just
scale down only link m/n since data m/n is for internal use.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>