On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:19:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:23:22PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:37 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Alexey Brodkin Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 15:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
The fake implementation is fundamentally racy, and I don't want to write helpers which can't be used correctly. Anyway I think without this patch (or something similar) arcpgu will stall badly with the new nonblocking helpers, because arcpgu didn't bother at all to implement nonblocking. Can you pls ack this, or even better, test the entire patch series? The helpers themselves should work, but in all 5 drivers tested thus far they discovered some bugs.
Sure I will happily test this series. The only question then is what should I use as a proper base?
It should apply on drm-next from Dave.
And indeed it won't work at all because arcpgu doesn't call drm_crtc_handle_vblank anywhere. So you need to add your patch to enable vblank interrupts somewhere. Note that as long as you leave max_vblank_counter as 0, the only bits you need is drm_vblank_init and drm_crtc_handle_vblanke() from the irq handler.
So is there any sense in testing that series if vblank interrupt is not yet supported (I'm looking forward to implementing it sometime soon but definitely I'm not there yet)?
Well, it might break your driver, so yes. I'm ofc happy to help unbreak it, but without someone who tests there's not much I can do, so will just go ahead and apply and hope it works.
Ok I went ahead and pushed a slight revised version of that patch which just unconditionally sends out the event. That's not correct, but at least that way the nonblocking changes won't totally break arcpgu and I can move ahead with those. -Daniel