On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:22:40AM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > Yes. > On Oct 12, 2013 1:18 AM, "Daniel Vetter" <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:31:38PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > > > Daniel, Ville, > > > > > > i tested Ville's patch series for the scanoutpos improvements on a > > > GMA-950, on top of airlied's current drm-next branch. > > > > > > There's one issue: The variable "position" in > > > i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos() must be turned from a u32 into a int, > > > otherwise funny sign errors happen and we end up with *vpos being > > > off by multiple million scanlines and timestamps being off by over > > > 60 seconds. > > > > > > Other than that looks good. Execution time is now better: > > > > > > Before uncore.lock addition: 3-4 usecs execution time for the > > > scanoutpos query on my machine. After uncore.lock addition > > > (3.12.0-rc3) 9-20 usecs, sometimes repetition of the timing loop > > > triggered. After Ville's patches down to typically 3-8 usecs, > > > occassionally spiking to almost 20 usecs. > > > > > > I'll make my patches for the realtime kernel + increased accuracy on > > > top of drm-next + Ville's patches. > > > > So official reviewed-by/tested-by from you on Ville's latest patches in > > this thread? > > Yes. Ok, slurped in the entire series, thanks for the review and testing. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
