On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 03:03:41PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 08:51:11PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Now that we unconditionally dtrt when disabling/enabling crtcs we don't need any hacks any longer to keep the vblank logic sane when all the registers go poof. So let's rip it all out.
Hmm. drm_update_vblank_count() will now see some kind of diff between the last and current value when the registers got cloberred. So the vblank counter reported to userspace will jump. But I guess that's fine as long as userspace realizes that the counter is not at all reliable across modesets.
I've added checks for this (the rpm varianst) and for the similiar suspend/resume issues (the suspend variants) to kms_flip. It seems to work and we don't actually jump to far. But maybe the tests are horribly broken.
Can you please take a closer look? I've thought that the entire point of this series (well, one of them) was to finally fix this gag and avoid handing totally bogus frame counter values to userspace. Especially for system suspend/resume where userspace might get susprised ... -Daniel
This essentially undoes
commit 9dbd8febb4dbc9199fcf340b882eb930e36b65b6 Author: Paulo Zanoni paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com Date: Tue Jul 23 10:48:11 2013 -0300
drm/i915: update last_vblank when disabling the power wellApparently igt/kms_flip is already powerful enough to exercise this properly, yay! See the reference regression report for details.
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66808 Testcase: igt/kms_flip/*-vs-rpm Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 34 ---------------------------------- 1 file changed, 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 75c1c766b507..45fa43f16bb3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c @@ -5423,33 +5423,6 @@ static void hsw_power_well_post_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) } }
-static void reset_vblank_counter(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe) -{
- assert_spin_locked(&dev->vbl_lock);
- dev->vblank[pipe].last = 0;
-}
-static void hsw_power_well_post_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) -{
- struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev;
- enum pipe pipe;
- unsigned long irqflags;
- /*
* After this, the registers on the pipes that are part of the power* well will become zero, so we have to adjust our counters according to* that.** FIXME: Should we do this in general in drm_vblank_post_modeset?*/- spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);
- for_each_pipe(pipe)
if (pipe != PIPE_A)reset_vblank_counter(dev, pipe);- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);
-}
static void hsw_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, struct i915_power_well *power_well, bool enable) { @@ -5478,8 +5451,6 @@ static void hsw_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, I915_WRITE(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER, 0); POSTING_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER); DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Requesting to disable the power well\n");
hsw_power_well_post_disable(dev_priv);} @@ -5646,11 +5617,6 @@ static void vlv_display_power_well_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, valleyview_disable_display_irqs(dev_priv); spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
- spin_lock_irq(&dev->vbl_lock);
- for_each_pipe(pipe)
reset_vblank_counter(dev, pipe);- spin_unlock_irq(&dev->vbl_lock);
- vlv_set_power_well(dev_priv, power_well, false);
}
-- 1.8.3.1
Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
-- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC