Hello, On 02/01/2017 03:37 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:41:08PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Op 31-01-17 om 20:13 schreef Uwe Kleine-König: >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:03:26AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> Op 31-01-17 om 09:09 schreef Uwe Kleine-König: >>>> Just curious, does this help? >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c >>>> index ae2c0bb4b2e8..13de4c526ca6 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c >>>> @@ -1838,7 +1838,7 @@ static uint32_t ilk_compute_cur_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state *cstate, >>>> * this is necessary to avoid flickering. >>>> */ >>>> int cpp = 4; >>>> - int width = pstate->base.visible ? pstate->base.crtc_w : 64; >>>> + int width = 256; >>>> >>>> if (!cstate->base.active) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>> On a kernel with this patch applied I cannot reproduce the flickering. I >>> keep that kernel running but expect that it also fixes the crash. >> >> Ok that's good news. >> >> Maybe ville or matt can comment whether this patch is the right fix? > > Well, it's just extending the hack even further. The right fix would be > to fix the wm programming sequence to respect the frame boundaries > correctly (ie. my old vblank based wm stuff). so I wonder how this goes forward. The situation seems to be well understood, but other than testing patches I don't know what to do (and there is currently no patch to test). Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
