On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 07:11:14PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014/1/17 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:17:42PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The eDP code records a few timestamps containing the last time we took > >> some actions, because we need to wait before doing some other actions. > >> The problem is that if we store a timestamp when suspending and then > >> look at it when resuming, we'll ignore the unknown amount of time we > >> actually were suspended. > >> > >> This happens with the panel power cycle delay: it's 500ms on my > >> machine, and it's delaying the resume sequence by 200ms due to a > >> timestamp we recorded before suspending. This patch should solve this > >> problem by resetting the timestamps. > > > > But you don't explain why this is safe. The code nerfs the timeouts so > > that they are ignored, yet the delays are independent. Should this be > > based on realtime rather than jiffies? > > I'm not sure I understand your question. What's the problem you see exactly? Given the fast suspend & resume, we will not have waited the required panel off time before poking it again etc. What makes that safe? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
