On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:18:13AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:38:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:14:31AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:54:52AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Also with this patch we should be able to throw out the hacks for tv-out. > > > I only added those because the reported mode-timings are massively off > > > (due to the magic tv scaler thing) from the real timestamps we receive. > > > Auto-detecting this is much better. > > > > Not quite just yet, we need to split the timing tests into a subgroup > > with a subtest per output so that we can skip one without skipping the > > others. At the moment, this check makes it bail out on my ctg/ilk who > > have a difference of about 50us between measured and expected vblank > > interval on LVDS (which is nigh on impossible given our confidence in the > > measurement, i.e. about 7 sigma). > > Hm, should we be a bit more sloppy in our acceptance? Iirc Ville has made > changes to make it a bit more strict a while ago, and way, way back this > stuff worked on my ctg. Haven't fired it up in a while ;-) Our vblank intervals are pretty stable, so the time compensation for the interrupt latency is within a scanline. (Of the top of my head, stddev for the interval is approximately half a scanline.) We are consistent at least :) The problem is just that we use the dotclock as our expected value for the timing tests. I considered changing that but frame_time() wasn't just used for the TEST_TS pass and I was less confident about the other uses. But for our subtest, we could get away with using the computed interval... > > > And another issue: Failing to match the reported mode timings is a driver > > > bug. > > > > Not quite, remember we override the user for fixed mode panels. But yes, > > piglit also has a similar expectation that the dotclock we report (via > > GetMscRate) in someway corresponds to actual vblank interval. > > Yeah, I hope that DRRS would fix that, at least on newer stuff. At least I > proposed just using the matching dotclock for manual DRRS (mostly to > perfectly match with the refresh rate of a video). Didn't yet happen :( Yup, DRRS breaks all the expectations userspace has that MscRate is fixed. Even a simple mode change leads to trouble. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
