On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:17:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > 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 ;-) > > > > > > 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 :( > > > > But at least for the default mode we should try real hard to match. > > The problem is the granularity of the PLL. For fixed mode panels we > could easily fix up what we report to userspace as the clock, which > would fix these tests. For external displays it's not quite so clear. Over-the top idea would be to adjust the reported modlines to match what we can do with the PLL on each platform. Probably not worth the trouble, but I guess if we bother with this for panels it won't be more work really. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
