On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:44:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:34:18AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > 2012/5/8 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>: > > > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:18:15PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com> > > >> > > >> intel_wait_for_vblank uses PIPESTAT, which does not exist on Ironlake > > >> and newer, so now we use PIPEFRAME. > > >> > > >> There's also a check to see if the pipe is stopped. > > > > > > Hm, why do we have this check here? The other wait_for_vblank > > > implementation doesn't bother with this. And if we call wait_for_vblank on > > > a disabled pipe, that's a bug imo. > > > -Daniel > > > > Because not checking for a stopped pipe adds a useless 50ms delay > > (it's the wait_for() timeout). We're currently calling > > wait_for_vblank() on disabled pipes. > > - Maybe I should add a DRM_DEBUG_KMS message there and then start > > fixing these cases? > > - Maybe I should move the check to intel_wait_for_vblank (including > > the debug message)? > > Either is fine, the thing that irked was just that now the semantics of > wait_for_vblank changed depending upon which chipset it runs on: > - for ilk, it will immediately return if the pipe is off > - for pre-ilk, it will time out for 50 ms, complain with a debug message > and then return. > > I'm leaning towards fixing up the callers to not call wait_for_vblank when > the pipe is off (and ditching the check from the ilk wait_for_vblank). Paulo acked this on irc, so I've queued the patch for -next with the pipe check removed, thanks. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
