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. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
