Hi Morimoto-san,

On Monday, 18 December 2017 10:38:19 EET Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Laurent
> 
> Thank you for your feedback
> 
> >> +   * To be small jitter,
> > 
> > Nitpicking, I would write this "to minimize the jitter".
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >> +                   * This code is assuming "used" from 64bit CPU only,
> >> +                   * not from 32bit CPU. But both can compile correctly
> > 
> > Nitpicking again, I would write this "This code only runs on 64-bit
> > architectures, the unsigned long type can thus be used for 64-bit
> > computation. It will still compile without any warning on 32-bit
> > architectures."
> 
> I will follow your English ;)
> 
> >> +                  /*
> >> +                   *      fvco    = fin * P *  N / M
> >> +                   *      fclkout = fin      * N / M / FDPLL
> >> +                   *
> >> +                   * To avoid duplicate calculation, let's use below
> >> +                   *
> >> +                   *      finnm   = fin * N / M
> > 
> > This is called fout in your diagram above, I would use the same name here.
> 
> Oops indeed. I didn't notice
> 
> >> +                  unsigned long finnm = input * (n + 1) / (m + 1);
> >> +                  unsigned long fvco  = finnm * 2;
> >> +
> >> +                  if (fvco < 2000 || fvco > 4096 * 1000 * 1000U)
> >> +                          continue;
> > 
> > How about
> > 
> >             if (fvco < 1000 || fvco > 2048 * 1000 * 1000)
> > 
> > to avoid computing the intermediate fvco variable ?
> 
> I think you want to say
> 
>               - if (fvco < 1000 || fvco > 2048 * 1000 * 1000)
>               + if (fout < 1000 || fout > 2048 * 1000 * 1000)

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

> Actually I notcied about this, but I thought it makes
> user confuse. Thus, I kept original number.
> 
> I'm happy if compiler can adjust it automatically,
> if not, I have no objection to modify it but we want to have such comment ?
> Because above comment/explain mentions about "fvco", not "fout".

Sure, I'll add a comment, it's a good point.

> > If you agree with these small changes there's no need to resubmit the
> > patch, I'll modify it when applying, and
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com>
> 
> Thank you for your help

Thank you for the code :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to