2014-09-19 15:24 GMT-03:00 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:42:44AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:28:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:59:20PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> > > > > If it wasn't never enabled by kernel parameter or platform default >> > > > > we can avoid reading registers so many times in vain >> > > > >> > > > Nak. >> > > >> > > Well I've merged this for now to reduce fbc impact. >> > > >> > >> > Uhm, unfortunatelly I'm afraid Chris was right. >> > Paulo also nacked it. Because it just helps when it was explicitly >> > disabled >> > by setting i915.enable_fbc=0 while the default is -1. >> > >> > I though about returning on <= 0, but Paulo is afraid that when enabling >> > back for some platform people would forget to fix this part here and I >> > agree. >> >> Well I guess I should have read mails before pushing out a new -next ;-) >> So this is now baked in. Should I revert or can we just fix up on top? > > > No problem, I can fix this on top. > > But what do you prefer: > > 1. <=0 return and changing parameter permission from 600 to 400 If i915.enable_fbc is -1, you don't know whether it's enabled or not. > 2. dev_priv->fbc_enabled I was just quickly tried to write this patch. It fixes the runtime PM regression I was seeing... > 3. or check if fbc_no_reason was ever set? Although I don't like the > fbc_no_reason and would like to clean it up in the future. But anyway, any > option here is temporary until a proper rework for cleanup and real fix. I also tried the fbc_no_reason path but gave up. When no_fbc_reason is FBC_OK, there's no guarantee that FBC is actually enabled: it just mean that we may be enabling/disabling it as part of the normal FBC operation. So to do what we want, we'd have to twist the meaning of no_fbc_reason and add values like FBC_OK_AND_ENABLED and FBC_OK_AND_DISABLED, and I don't think that's a cool solution. I'll send the patch for item 2 in a few minutes. > >> >> -Daniel >> -- >> Daniel Vetter >> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation >> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > > > > > -- > Rodrigo Vivi > Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br > > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
