On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:16:23AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:33:49PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Asking for the initial vblank count by specifying and absolute vblank count of 0 > > doesn't make much sense. Switch to a relative query instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/kms_setmode.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/kms_setmode.c b/tests/kms_setmode.c > > index 206d360607bb..ed5d97442255 100644 > > --- a/tests/kms_setmode.c > > +++ b/tests/kms_setmode.c > > @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static void check_timings(int crtc_idx, const drmModeModeInfo *kmode) > > > > memset(&wait, 0, sizeof(wait)); > > wait.request.type = kmstest_get_vbl_flag(crtc_idx); > > - wait.request.type |= DRM_VBLANK_ABSOLUTE | DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS; > > + wait.request.type |= DRM_VBLANK_RELATIVE | DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS; > > Looking at drm_wait_vblank_is_query() in drm_vblank.c you also want to > drop NEXTONMISS. Hmm. I think we may want to line things up to a vblank boundary here (but I'd have to re-read the code to confirm that). Without the NEXTONMISS we would just query the current count and continue immediately. Alternative I guess we could drop the NEXTONMISS but instead wait for seq+1. > With that: > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> on both. > > Cheers, Daniel > > do_or_die(drmWaitVBlank(drm_fd, &wait)); > > > > last_seq = wait.reply.sequence; > > -- > > 2.13.5 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
