On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:56:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:07:58PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > Do the refresh rate calculation with a single division. This gives
> > us slightly more accurate results, especially for interlaced since
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:56:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:07:58PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > Do the refresh rate calculation with a single division. This gives
> > us slightly more accurate results, especially for interlaced since
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:07:58PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> Do the refresh rate calculation with a single division. This gives
> us slightly more accurate results, especially for interlaced since
> we don't just double the final truncated result.
>
> We do lose one b
From: Ville Syrjälä
Do the refresh rate calculation with a single division. This gives
us slightly more accurate results, especially for interlaced since
we don't just double the final truncated result.
We do lose one bit compared to the old way, so with an interlaced
mode the new code can only