On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:07:16PM +0900, Hoegeun Kwon wrote:
> If scanout started, we should reduce etime by delta_ns. But delta_ns
> is negative if scanout has not started. If delta_ns is negative,
> subtraction of delta_ns from etime increases etime. This is wrong, the
> etime should not be increased, so you have to make delta_ns an
> absolute value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hoegeun Kwon <hoegeun.kwon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Hello all,
>
> I think that the etime should not be increased.
> In cases where delta_ns is negative, if you get time again after an
> interrupt call, there is a problem that the time obtained from the
> interrupt becomes the future time instead of the past time.
>
> Please let me know if this patch is wrong.
It is wrong. The timestamp corresponds to the first active pixel of the
frame/field. So while between vblank start and active start we expect
to get a timestamp that is in the future.
>
> Best regards,
> Hoegeun
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> index 70f2b95..a3e0176 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ bool drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos(struct drm_device *dev,
> /* Subtract time delta from raw timestamp to get final
> * vblank_time timestamp for end of vblank.
> */
> - etime = ktime_sub_ns(etime, delta_ns);
> + etime = ktime_sub_ns(etime, abs(delta_ns));
> *vblank_time = ktime_to_timeval(etime);
>
> DRM_DEBUG_VBL("crtc %u : v p(%d,%d)@ %ld.%ld -> %ld.%ld [e %d us, %d rep]\n",
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
