On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > With Software tracking we are going to PSR sooner than we should and staying > with blank screens in many cases. > > Using 2 identical frames to detect idleness is safier. > > Discovered and validated with refactored igt/kms_sink_psr_crc. > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index f79473b..a796831 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -1813,7 +1813,7 @@ static void intel_edp_psr_enable_source(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev; > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f; > - uint32_t idle_frames = 1; > + uint32_t idle_frames = 2; Hm, that sounds like we allow psr before it is really possible. And we still delay the actual re-enable work by 100ms, so it very much looks like something is broken here. Which exact subcases do fail? -Daniel > uint32_t val = 0x0; > const uint32_t link_entry_time = EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES; > bool only_standby = false; > -- > 1.9.3 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
