On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 13:29 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > 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. > Definitely there's room for optimization here. We could get rid of those delays. > 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? We should limit this to gen9+ MIPI/DSI. The BSpec says that MIPI DSI is not supported from Broxton onwards. > > ~Maarten > -- Mika Kahola - Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
