From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ignore the vrefresh in the mode the user passed in and instead calculate the value based on the actual timings. This way we can actually trust mode->vrefresh to some degree. Or should we compare the user's idea of vrefresh with the one we get from the timings and return an error if they differ? We can't really be sure what the user is asking in that case. v2: Set it before mode validation Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c index 7f552d5fa88e..11d8224535ca 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c @@ -1702,7 +1702,11 @@ int drm_mode_convert_umode(struct drm_device *dev, out->vsync_end = in->vsync_end; out->vtotal = in->vtotal; out->vscan = in->vscan; - out->vrefresh = in->vrefresh; + /* + * Ignore what the user is saying here and instead + * calculate vrefresh based on the actual timings. + */ + out->vrefresh = 0; out->flags = in->flags; /* * Old xf86-video-vmware (possibly others too) used to @@ -1738,6 +1742,8 @@ int drm_mode_convert_umode(struct drm_device *dev, break; } + out->vrefresh = drm_mode_vrefresh(out); + out->status = drm_mode_validate_driver(dev, out); if (out->status != MODE_OK) return -EINVAL; -- 2.16.4 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
