On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Michel [ISO-8859-1] D�nzer wrote:
[ xf86-video-ati patches usually go to the xorg-driver-ati@lists.x.org list ]
I was told it should go to Alex and CC dri-devel. Next time I'll include the other list.
I'm still against this. At this point we know with certainty that DRM_VBLANK_SECONDARY won't do what we want. In particular, if CRTC 1 is disabled, the ioctl will time out, which I thought was a significant part of your motivation for these changes.
You seemed to agree with this in Pine.GSO.4.62.1103041912320.20023@umail .
Not quite. What I said is that I want to achieve is the following behavior:
a) legacy anything (kernel or DDX), unchanged behavior from what we are seeing now b) new everything (kernel and DDX), vblanks use the right CRTC.
The above code achieves that. I explained the motivation in my previous posts and I won't repeat here.
- }
- vbl.request.type |= high_crtc;
Also, the high_crtc local variable seems rather pointless, and I agree with others that the common logic should be factored out into a helper function.
An alternative patch with repeated code factored out was offered to the list as a follow up on Jesse's comment on that. Alex decides which one to accept.
@@ -1248,6 +1308,7 @@ radeon_dri2_screen_init(ScreenPtr pScreen) #endif dri2_info.CopyRegion = radeon_dri2_copy_region;
- info->high_crtc_works = FALSE; #ifdef USE_DRI2_SCHEDULING if (info->dri->pKernelDRMVersion->version_minor >= 4) { dri2_info.version = 4;
@@ -1261,6 +1322,20 @@ radeon_dri2_screen_init(ScreenPtr pScreen) xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_WARNING, "You need a newer kernel for sync extension\n"); }
- if (info->drmmode.mode_res->count_crtcs > 2) {
- if (drmGetCap(info->dri2.drm_fd, DRM_CAP_HIGH_CRTC, &cap_value)) {
info->high_crtc_works = FALSE;This assignment is redundant from above.
Speaking from functionality perspective, yes it's redundant, but having it makes the code more readable and maintenable (i.e. you see exactly what the intended value of the flag should be if the condition is taken as opposed to having to trace it up. The assignment up, however, is necessary to make it safe if the code is taken out by the pre-processor.
- } else {
if (cap_value) {info->high_crtc_works = TRUE;} else {xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_WARNING, "Your kernel does not handle VBLANKs on CRTC>1\n");info->high_crtc_works = FALSE;Is there any point in having two different warning messages? I think 'CRTC > 1' could use spaces.
There is a point: one warning tells you that the kernel is old and you have to upgrade. The other warning tells you that the kernel is new enough (it has the GET_CAP ioctl), but for some other reason refused to handle high-crtcs (which at this time doesn't exist, but it should not be the reason to "destroy" the information).
I bet the change on my desk in my office that if I had the blankspace, someone would have responded with an opposite suggestion ;-).
-- Ilija