On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:39:17PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> 2016-08-18 5:21 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > Only fbc1 is tied to using a fence. Later iterations of fbc are more >> > flexible and allow operation on unfenced frontbuffers. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: "Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hi >> >> I see this patch was applied. Now, on my Skylake machine, if I boot >> with i915.enable_fbc=1 I'll get FIFO underruns under fbcon. Just >> booting already gives me a FIFO underrun message, and then if I "sudo >> systemctl stop lightdm" I'll get a constantly-blinking screen. >> >> Of course, applying the patch that disables FBC after a FIFO underrun >> will help stopping the ever-blinking fbcon, but I think we should try >> to avoid the underruns in the places we know we can, and leave the >> "disable FBC on FIFO underruns" just for the cases we're not expecting. >> >> Also, please remember that I mentioned there are FBC workarounds for >> untiled that we still don't implement (although when I re-read my >> email it may sound like I suggested the workarounds are for non-GTT >> tracking). IMHO this argument alone should >> have prevented this patch from being merged... >> >> Based on that, can we please revert this patch? I'm afraid some people >> would consider these underruns as blockers to enabling FBC, so it's >> probably better to enable FBC only on X tiled for now, and leave this >> for when we know how to prevent the underrun (possibly by implementing >> the missing WAs). >> >> >> (I'm sorry if you got this message twice, but the mail servers are a >> little crazy these days and I didn't receive my copy, so I'm sending >> it again). > > Yeah, mailman was on vacation a bit the last few days due to a ddos > probably. +1 from me for just reverting if this is causing troubles. > Also, patch doesn't seem to have a Testcase: line, was the > kms_frontbuffer_tracking test not extended to cover this new use-case? In > that case definitely revert, since failed to pass testing requirements. Original patch also wasn't acked by Paulo, which it pretty much has to be as an fbc patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
