Hi Ville.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:34:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
A lot of the panel drivers put bogus looking values into mode.clock. This series replaces the bogus values with mode.vrefresh*mode.htotal*mode.vtotal.
I think you got it wrong.... The few I sampled I would rather say that the clock specified was the one that was possible with the present HW and the refresh rate was then set to what was attempted.
Example: chunghwa_claa101wb01_mode
clock is 69300 - which looks like a value you could configure in HW. It not not a nive round value. refresh is 60, which looks like the refresh value that was attempted.
So unless there is a big difference between the calcualted refresh (based on the specifed clock), and the specified clock it should be assumed that clock is OK. And it is OK to drop refresh.
This is my take on it - but you based your patches on refresh. So maybe you have a better rationale to do so?
Also, let's await feedback from the people cc'ed on the pathces.
Sam