> Am 09.03.2020 um 14:00 schrieb Ville Syrjälä :
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 08:41:43PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.03.2020 um 16:49 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
Am 03.03.2020 um 16:03 schrieb Ville Syrjälä
:
> I haven't looked into
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 08:41:43PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>
> > Am 03.03.2020 um 16:49 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Am 03.03.2020 um 16:03 schrieb Ville Syrjälä
> >> :
> >>
> >>> I haven't looked into the driver code, but would it be
> >>> possible to
> Am 03.03.2020 um 16:49 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller :
>
> Hi,
>
>> Am 03.03.2020 um 16:03 schrieb Ville Syrjälä :
>>
>>> I haven't looked into the driver code, but would it be
>>> possible to specify .clock = 0 (or leave it out) to
>>> calculate it bottom up? This would avoid such
Hi,
> Am 03.03.2020 um 16:03 schrieb Ville Syrjälä :
>
>> I haven't looked into the driver code, but would it be
>> possible to specify .clock = 0 (or leave it out) to
>> calculate it bottom up? This would avoid such inconsistencies.
>
> I'm going to remove .vrefresh entirely from the struct.
>
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:24:14PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> > Am 02.03.2020 um 21:34 schrieb Ville Syrjala
> > :
> >
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > The currently listed dotclock disagrees with the currently
> > listed vrefresh rate. Change the dotclock to match the
Hi Ville,
> Am 02.03.2020 um 21:34 schrieb Ville Syrjala :
>
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> The currently listed dotclock disagrees with the currently
> listed vrefresh rate. Change the dotclock to match the vrefresh.
>
> Someone tell me which (if either) of the dotclock or vreresh is
> correct?
From: Ville Syrjälä
The currently listed dotclock disagrees with the currently
listed vrefresh rate. Change the dotclock to match the vrefresh.
Someone tell me which (if either) of the dotclock or vreresh is
correct?
Cc: H. Nikolaus Schaller
Cc: Sam Ravnborg
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
---
