On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:26 -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> > Tomi Valkeinen writes:
>> >> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >>> It sounds to me like it acu
Tomi Valkeinen writes:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:03 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[...]
>> So, in summary, I have no objection $SUBJECT patch which implements the
>> constraint using the only available method we have today.
>
> I take that was an ack for these patches? =)
Yes. A reluctant one,
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:26 -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Tomi Valkeinen writes:
> >> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>> It sounds to me like it acutally is a throughput constraint on CORE. If
> >>> so, wouldn'
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:03 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> [ Tomi, sorry for the delay. I thought I had sent this a while back,
> but found it in my drafts folder. ]
>
> +Mike for clock comments
>
> Tomi Valkeinen writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Hi Tom
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Tomi Valkeinen writes:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> It sounds to me like it acutally is a throughput constraint on CORE. If
>>> so, wouldn't it be clearer to set a throughput constraint that is
>>> calculate
[ Tomi, sorry for the delay. I thought I had sent this a while back,
but found it in my drafts folder. ]
+Mike for clock comments
Tomi Valkeinen writes:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Hi Tomi,
>>
>> Tomi Valkeinen writes:
>>
>> > Hi Kevin, Paul,
>> >
>> > I kn
Ping.
Tomi
On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 08:38 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Hi Tomi,
> >
> > Tomi Valkeinen writes:
> >
> > > Hi Kevin, Paul,
> > >
> > > I know you're busy, but I'd appreciate a comment/ack on these two small
> > > patches,
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 11:37 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
>
> Tomi Valkeinen writes:
>
> > Hi Kevin, Paul,
> >
> > I know you're busy, but I'd appreciate a comment/ack on these two small
> > patches, so I could get them in to next merge window. Otherwise using
> > any other OPP than OPP1
Hi Kevin, Paul,
I know you're busy, but I'd appreciate a comment/ack on these two small
patches, so I could get them in to next merge window. Otherwise using
any other OPP than OPP100 will most likely break the DSS.
This looks quite straightforward fix for me, but I'm not sure if there
could be a
Most of the DSS clocks have restrictions on their frequency based on the
OPP in use. For example, maximum frequency for a clock may be 180MHz in
OPP100, but 90MHz in OPP50. This means that when a high enough pixel
clock or function clock is required, we need to use OPP100.
However, there's current
10 matches
Mail list logo