On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 10:16:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > If the crtc is being switched on or off then the semantics of > computing the timestampe of the next vblank is somewhat ill-defined. > And indeed, the code splats with a warning in the timestamp > computation code. Specifically it hits the check to make sure that > atomic drivers have full set up the timing constants in the drm_vblank > structure, and that's just not the case before the crtc is actually > on. > > For robustness it seems best to just not set deadlines for modesets. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/dfc21f18-7e1e-48f0-c05a-d659b9c90b91@xxxxxxxxxx/ > Fixes: d39e48ca80c0 ("drm/atomic-helper: Set fence deadline for vblank") > Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> # test patch only > Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > index f21b5a74176c..6640d80d84f3 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > @@ -1528,6 +1528,9 @@ static void set_fence_deadline(struct drm_device *dev, > for_each_new_crtc_in_state (state, crtc, new_crtc_state, i) { > ktime_t v; > > + if (drm_atomic_crtc_needs_modeset(new_crtc_state)) > + continue; Should this stuff also be skipped when !new_crtc_state->active? I didn't actually check what drm_crtc_next_vblank_start() ends up doing in that case. > + > if (drm_crtc_next_vblank_start(crtc, &v)) > continue; > > -- > 2.40.0 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
