On 20/04/16 00:54, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Martin Peres wrote:
+ result = ((s64)info.arg[0] * 15625) >>
18;
+ result += ((s64)info.arg[1] * volt->speedo
* 15625) >> 18;
+ resul
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Martin Peres wrote:
>> + result = ((s64)info.arg[0] * 15625) >>
>> 18;
>> + result += ((s64)info.arg[1] * volt->speedo
>> * 15625) >> 18;
>> + result += ((s64)info.arg[2] * t
On 18/04/16 22:13, Karol Herbst wrote:
I am sure that those are a bit different, but while testing the biggest error
compared to nvidia was -1.5%.
Is this still true? I thought we were *much* closer now.
Without this change we are most of the time around 10% below nvidias voltage,
so this ch
I am sure that those are a bit different, but while testing the biggest error
compared to nvidia was -1.5%.
Without this change we are most of the time around 10% below nvidias voltage,
so this change causes no harm and improves the situation a lot already.
These coefficients were REed by modifin
