ok, got it. So, the correct here is to remove inactivate from set_domain and add gem_bo_busy call on MMAP_GTT testcase? On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:54:00AM -0200, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:24:44AM -0200, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:47:54AM -0200, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> >> >> This patch adds PSR Support to Baytrail. >> >> >> >> >> >> Baytrail cannot easily detect screen updates and force PSR exit. >> >> >> So we inactivate it on {busy_ioctl, set_domain, sw_finish and mark_busy >> >> >> and update to enable it back on next display mark_idle. >> >> >> >> >> >> v2: Also inactivate PSR on cursor update. >> >> >> v3: Inactivate PSR on mark_busy, dset_domain and sw_finish_ioctl, and >> >> >> early on page flip besides avoid initializing inactive/active flag >> >> >> more than once. >> >> >> v4: Fix identation issues. >> >> >> v5: Rebase and add Baytrail per pipe support although leaving PIPE_B >> >> >> support disabled by for now since it isn't working properly yet. >> >> >> v6: Removing forgotten comment and useless clkgating definition. >> >> > >> >> > Not set-domain. This is semantically a flush and so should be after the >> >> > damage is done. >> >> >> >> Yep, I semantically I agree, but if we let to inactivate psr after >> >> damage is done we will miss screen updates. >> >> This was the safest way to get psr enabled and fully working and >> >> passing crc tests. >> >> If you have another place to suggest i'd be glad in do some tests >> >> here, but for now this is the more stable place I know about. >> > >> > It's the test that are at fault here for not following the established >> > ABI imo. >> >> this makes sense. >> >> do we have this established ABI documented somewhere? > > Only what was established as required to make things work a few years > ago... > >> and what is missing on test? is it a busy ioctl in the end? > > busy or even a sw_finish. I see it already did the sw_finish. We have in > the past talked about formalizing the gap in the documentation with a > new call... > >> but anyway, doing this on set_domain we could fix the psr on >> environments that doesn't follow this abi like KDE. > > As we have discussed in the past, that is an issue in the ddx that > short-circuits the required flush if there was only GTT damage. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx