On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:49:58PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > We should update the last in drm_update_vblank_count() to avoid applying > the diff more than once. This could occur eg. if drm_vblank_off() gets > called multiple times for the crtc. > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Currently we update ->last when disabling the vblank and use it when re-enabling it. Those calls should be symmetric, except for driver bugs. Imo would be better to tighten up the checks for that. Or do I completely misunderstand what's going on here? -Daniel > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c > index 0523f5b..67507a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ static void drm_update_vblank_count(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc) > if (diff == 0) > return; > > + vblank->last = cur_vblank; > + > /* Reinitialize corresponding vblank timestamp if high-precision query > * available. Skip this step if query unsupported or failed. Will > * reinitialize delayed at next vblank interrupt in that case. > -- > 1.8.5.5 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- 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
