On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:26:24PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:12:41PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:56:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
So basically we see this warning only in case of bigjoiner when drm_atomic_check gets called without setting the state->allow_modeset flag.
Considering the code is 'WARN(!state->allow_modeset, ...' that fact should be rather obvious.
So do you think that in i915, in intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner() we should only steal the crtc when allow_modeset flag is set in state?
No. If you fully read drm_atomic_check_only() you will observe that it will reject any commit w/ allow_modeset==false which needs a modeset. And it does that before the WARN.
So you're barking up the wrong tree here. The problem I think is that you're just computing requested_crtcs wrong.
So here in this case, requested CRTC = 0x1 since it requests modeset on CRTC 0 Now in teh atomic check, it steals the slave CRTC 1 and hence affected CRTC comes out as 0x3 and hence the mismatch.
Hmm. How can it be 0x3 if we filtered out the uapi.enable==false case?
Yes if I add that condition like in this patch then it correctly calculates the affected crtc bitmask as only 0x1 since it doesnt include the slave crtc. So with this patch, requested crtc = 0x 1, affected crtc = 0x1
If this looks good then this fixes our bigjoiner warnings. Does this patch look good to you as is then?
I think you still need to fix the requested_crtcs calculation.