On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 22:58 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > Hey, > > > > On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: > > > On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > > As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer > > > > tracking, allow > > > > i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in > > > > Xe. > > > > > > > > The frontbuffer tracking for Xe is still done per-fb, while > > > > i915 can > > > > keep doing the weird intel_frontbuffer + i915_active thing > > > > without > > > > blocking Xe. > > > Please also disable PSR and FBC with this or at least add a way > > > for users to disable those features. > > > Without frontbuffer tracker those two features will break in some > > > cases. > > > > FBC and PSR work completely as expected. I don't remove frontbuffer > > tracking; I only remove the GEM parts. > > > > Explicit invalidation using pageflip or CPU rendering + DirtyFB > > continue > > to work, as I validated on my laptop with FBC. > > Neither of which are relevant to the removal of the gem hooks. > > Like I already said ~10 times in the last meeting, we need a proper > testcase. Here's a rough idea what it should do: > > prepare a batch with > 1. spinner > 2. something that clobbers the fb > > Then > 1. grab reference crc > 2. execbuffer > 3. dirtyfb > 4. wait long enough for fbc to recompress > 5. terminate spinner > 6. gem_sync > 7. grab crc and compare with reference > > No idea what the current status of PSR+CRC is, so not sure > whether we can actually test PSR or not. > CRC calculation doesn't work with PSR currently. PSR is disabled if CRC capture is requested. Are we supposed to support frontbuffer rendering using GPU? BR, Jouni Högander
