Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

2007-10-26 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue 2007-09-11 14:18:57, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: >> I think 2.6.22 would be overkill, .23 - not sure. > > I don't think this is -stable kind of bug. Given the timeframe, I can only agree once again :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this l

Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

2007-10-26 Thread Pavel Machek
On Tue 2007-09-11 14:18:57, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks. > > > and... what are the consequences of this miscalculation? I need to know > > such things so that I can decide whether a change is needed in 2

Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

2007-09-11 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks. > and... what are the consequences of this miscalculation? I need to know > such things so that I can decide whether a change is needed in 2.6.23. And > 2.6.22. The pixel clock (and thus both H and V sy

Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

2007-09-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:24:42 +0200 Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- a/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c > +++ b/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c > @@ -924,10 +920,10 @@ ca

[PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

2007-09-10 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- a/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c +++ b/drivers/video/intelfb/intelfbhw.c @@ -924,10 +920,10 @@ calc_pll_params(int index, int clock, u32 *retm1, u32 *retm2, u32 *retn, u32 *re