On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:18:20PM +0000, Grodzovsky, Andrey wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > Daniel Vetter > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:51 AM > > To: Michel Dänzer > > Cc: Grodzovsky, Andrey; Deucher, Alexander; dri- > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/atomic: Add target_vblank support in atomic > > helpers (v2) > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > On 12/01/17 12:48 AM, Grodzovsky, Andrey wrote: > > >>> From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:michel@xxxxxxxxxxx] On 09/01/17 06:59 > > >>> PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >>>> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:39:40PM -0500, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote: > > >>>>> Allows usage of the new page_flip_target hook for drivers > > >>>>> implementing the atomic path. > > >>>>> Provides default atomic helper for the new hook. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> v2: > > >>>>> Update code sharing logic between exsiting and the new flip hooks. > > >>>>> Improve kerneldoc. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@xxxxxxx> > > >>>> > > >>>> Looks all reasonable, I think an ack from Alex that the amd side is > > >>>> in shape too, and I'll pull this into drm-misc. > > >>> > > >>> Andrey, is there an updated patch 2 adapted to current patch 1? > > >>> Other than that and some questionable indentation of parameters in > > >>> function signatures, looks good to me FWIW. > > >> > > >> We are unable to use the atomic helpers both for page_flip and > > >> page_flip_target At their current form mostly due to > > DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC flag rejection they do. > > >> I discussed this with Daniel Vetter on IRC and suggested to remove > > >> the rejection but he said the precise semantics of atomic async flip > > >> is not clear yet and it's better to leave that out for now until > > >> there is a userspace asking for it. > > >> So I tested it by just hacking the helper to remove the rejection. > > >> Until that settled the original change [PATCH 2/2] drm/amd/dal: > > >> Switch to page_flip_target hook in DAL Is what we plan to use in DAL > > > > > > IIRC Daniel suggested (on IRC?) to use the helper for non-async flips > > > and the current DC code for async flips. Is that feasible? > > > > We do have some async flip flag reserved for atomic, so we could route it > > through. But since atm there's no one asking for async flips on the atomic > > ioctl I'm a bit wary for fear of ending up with ill-defined semantics. But I guess > > if we do this for legacy pageflips only, and make sure we do still reject async > > flips submitted through the atomic ioctl that should be all fine. And it should > > allow amdgpu to entirely get rid of the legacy flip path, which would be nice. > > > > Once we have that we could even use it for cursor plane updates (through > > the legacy ioctl, for drivers with universal planes), for those drivers that > > support it. > > -Daniel > > So are we ok with a follow-up patch removing the ASYNC_FLIP restriction in the legacy IOCTL > + adding the drm_mode_crtc_page_flip_target.flags to drm_crtc_state ? In that case as I said before, > at least for DAL we could drop our own page_flip hook and use the avaialbe helpers. Yeah, reconsidering all I think that'd be rather reasonable approach. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
