On 07/07/17 10:34 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 07/07/17 12:04 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
Michel Dänzer michel@daenzer.net writes:
@@ -317,6 +317,9 @@ int via_driver_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev) if (!dev_priv) return -EINVAL;
- if (dev->driver->get_vblank_counter)
dev->max_vblank_count = 0xffffffff;What's the purpose of this? All drivers providing get_vblank_counter should already initialize max_vblank_count correctly.
Yeah, I couldn't prove that this driver did that,
Which driver?
and as Daniel says, we haven't ever audited the drivers to make sure they do.
I don't think that's what he meant, rather that with the change above, all drivers have to be audited to make sure the added assignment doesn't clobber an earlier assignment by the driver.
... and if there are any drivers that set dev->driver->get_vblank_counter but don't set dev->max_vblank_count to a non-0 value, that the hardware counter actually has 32 bits.
I'd say don't bother, just drop this hunk.