On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:45:45AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 11-10-16 om 08:55 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:17:22AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> Op 10-10-16 om 13:56 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:46:32PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:42:01PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:34:54PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>> To enable the vblank itself, we need to have an RPM wakeref for the mmio
> >>>>>> access, and whilst generating the vblank interrupts we continue to
> >>>>>> require the rpm wakeref. The assumption is that the RPM wakeref is held
> >>>>>> by the display powerwell held by the active pipe. As this chain was not
> >>>>>> obvious to me chasing the drm_wait_vblank ioctl, document it with a WARN
> >>>>>> during *_vblank_enable().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v2: Check the display power well rather than digging inside the atomic
> >>>>>> CRTC state.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>>>>> index 1e43fe30da11..f0f17055dbb9 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>>>>> @@ -2715,6 +2715,14 @@ void i915_handle_error(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >>>>>> i915_reset_and_wakeup(dev_priv);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +static void assert_pipe_is_awake(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >>>>>> + enum pipe pipe)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG) &&
> >>>>>> + !intel_display_power_is_enabled(dev_priv,
> >>>>>> + POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE(pipe)));
> >>>>> Uses a mutex. And having a power well enabled doesn't mean much. It
> >>>>> doesn't guarantee that vblanks work.
> >>>> Impasse. :|
> >>>>
> >>>> There should be no point in an explicit assert_rpm_wakeref here as the
> >>>> register access should catch an error there. Is there no safe way we can
> >>>> assert the current state of the CRTC is correct for enabling vblanks?
> >>> crtc->active might be the closest thing, if we just ignore any locking.
> >>> Though it looks like that has gone a bit mad these days, what with being
> >>> set from the .crtc_enable() hooks but getting cleared outside the
> >>> .crtc_disable() hooks.
> >>>
> >> I'm trying to kill crtc->active.
> > Because it's evil? I still don't see much problem in having a thing to
> > track the state of each pipe fairly accurately.
> >
> >> Maybe you'd want to use dev_priv->active_crtcs, but that won't save you if you enable interrupts in between atomic commit and .crtc_disable
> > Nothing atomic based will work well because the state is not flipped at
> > the same time as the actual hardware state changes.
> >
> >> Safest bet is to look at the power state I think.
> > I don't know which power state you mean, but I already shot down the
> > power domain thing.
> >
> >
> I would say use assert_pipe_enabled then.
Nope. That one frobs with power domains too these days.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
