On 4 August 2016 at 11:01, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04.08.2016 18:51, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 4 August 2016 at 04:39, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Patch 6 extends the ioctl with new flags, which allow userspace to >>> explicitly specify the target vblank seqno. This can also avoid delaying >>> flips in some cases where we are already in the target vertical blank >>> period when the ioctl is called. >> >> Is there open userspace for this? > > Sure, referenced in patch 6: > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~daenzer/xf86-video-ati/commit/?id=fc884a8af25345c32bd4104c864ecfeb9bb3db9b > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~daenzer/xf86-video-amdgpu/commit/?id=b8631a9ba49c0d0ebe5dcd1dbfb68fcfe907296f > > >> What's the behaviour vs. modeset: does the modeset request block until >> the last-requested flip is complete? If so, is there some kind of upper >> bound on the number of blank periods to wait for? > > Did you read the patch? :) Nope, for some reason my mailer decided it didn't like it, but I did find it in the archives. > The only change compared to the existing ioctl is that userspace can ask > for a flip to take effect in the current vblank seqno. The code added by > the patch checks for target vblank seqno > current vblank seqno + 1 and > returns -EINVAL in that case. This is also documented in drm_mode.h. Is there any particular benefit to having split absolute/relative modes in this case? Personally I'm struggling to see the use of relative. >> Is all this tested somewhere? > > Yes, I've been using it for a while on all my machines. I mean in a test suite. :) Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
