Op 05-09-17 om 15:35 schreef Mika Kahola: > It appears that we cannot trust scanline counters when MIPI/DSI display is > connected. In CI system this appears as flickering errors that randomly > appear in test cases. To avoid this flickering, let's just silence atomic > update failure in case with DSI panel. > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102403 > Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > index b0d6e3e..8511072 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > @@ -205,23 +205,25 @@ void intel_pipe_update_end(struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state) > if (intel_vgpu_active(dev_priv)) > return; > > - if (crtc->debug.start_vbl_count && > - crtc->debug.start_vbl_count != end_vbl_count) { > - DRM_ERROR("Atomic update failure on pipe %c (start=%u end=%u) time %lld us, min %d, max %d, scanline start %d, end %d\n", > - pipe_name(pipe), crtc->debug.start_vbl_count, > - end_vbl_count, > - ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time), > - crtc->debug.min_vbl, crtc->debug.max_vbl, > - crtc->debug.scanline_start, scanline_end); > - } > + if (!intel_crtc_has_type(new_crtc_state, INTEL_OUTPUT_DSI)) { > + if (crtc->debug.start_vbl_count && > + crtc->debug.start_vbl_count != end_vbl_count) { > + DRM_ERROR("Atomic update failure on pipe %c (start=%u end=%u) time %lld us, min %d, max %d, scanline start %d, end %d\n", > + pipe_name(pipe), crtc->debug.start_vbl_count, > + end_vbl_count, > + ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time), > + crtc->debug.min_vbl, crtc->debug.max_vbl, > + crtc->debug.scanline_start, scanline_end); > + } > #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_VBLANK_EVADE > - else if (ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time) > > - VBLANK_EVASION_TIME_US) > - DRM_WARN("Atomic update on pipe (%c) took %lld us, max time under evasion is %u us\n", > - pipe_name(pipe), > - ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time), > - VBLANK_EVASION_TIME_US); > + else if (ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time) > > + VBLANK_EVASION_TIME_US) > + DRM_WARN("Atomic update on pipe (%c) took %lld us, max time under evasion is %u us\n", > + pipe_name(pipe), > + ktime_us_delta(end_vbl_time, crtc->debug.start_vbl_time), > + VBLANK_EVASION_TIME_US); > #endif > + } > } > > static void I don't think this goes far enough. We should stop claiming accurate vblanks when MIPI/DSI is used. intel_get_crtc_scanline will currently spin for 100 us to see if we can move from scanline offset = 0, this means that we add an additional 100 us wait for MIPI/DSI always. i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos should return false as well. Does this mean need_vlv_dsi_wa in intel_pipe_update_start is now a noop? Should we perhaps only apply this for gen9+ MIPI/DSI? ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
