On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:50:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 02 May 2018, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-05-02 17:14:21) > >> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-05-02 16:52:41) > >> > > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:33:30PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2018-04-26 17:30:15) > >> > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > During state readout we first read out the pipe src size, store > >> > > > > that information in the user mode h/vdisplay, but later on we overwrite > >> > > > > that with the actual crtc timings. That makes our read out crtc state > >> > > > > inconsistent with itself when the BIOS has enabled the panel fitter to > >> > > > > scale the pipe contents. Let's preserve the pipe src size based > >> > > > > information in the user mode to make things consistent again. > >> > > > > >> > > > The question I don't feel answered is: If this is the BIOS mode, why > >> > > > aren't we filling it from get_hw_state? > >> > > > >> > > I suppose the answer is that we're only filling out the bare minimum > >> > > of information during the basic readout. That is everything we need > >> > > for intel_pipe_config_compare() to do its job. Later on we fill the > >> > > gaps to make the state actually presentable to userspace. We don't > >> > > have to do that if the state we read out isn't actually going to be > >> > > exposed to userspace. > >> > > > >> > > I suppose we could consider doing a more thorough job up front, but > >> > > I think we'd need to spend some though on eg. the handling of the > >> > > mode blob. We probably wouldn't want userspace to gain access to > >> > > our short lived internal mode blob created from the read out state. > >> > > >> > Will we run into a problem where we say the current mode is 800x600, but > >> > is in fact 1024x768 scaledfrom 800x600? E.g. if we for whatever reason > >> > want to switch to a real 800x600 mode? > >> > >> Seems unlikely that the real 800x600 mode would have the same blanking > >> lengths and clock as the 1024x768 mode. So we should end up with a full > >> modeset. > > > > Right, that's going to be pretty weird and unlikely. > > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >From [1], > > Tested-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Amended, and pushed to dinq. Thanks for the bug reports, testing and review. > > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/4371fd28-49fb-f019-1fc3-f1318b9562fd@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > I guess you would want to throw in a comment as to why this is a special > > case... But this whole pass is pretty special inheritance code... > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
