>From: Daniel Vetter > >On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:35:55AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> It was identified that in some cases when moving cursor Hardware can do >> mistake with idle_frame count. So Spec is being updated to use >> 2 as minimum idle_frames. >> >> Reference: >https://hsdhsw.intel.com/hsd/haswell_platform/default.aspx#sighting/default.as >px?sighting_id=4394433 >> Cc: Arthur Runyan <arthur.j.runyan@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > >Since we have full-blown sw frontbuffer tracking: Do we care? > >I.e. is the effect of idle_frames = 1 that the hw will go bananas (bad, we >want this patch) or that it might miss a cursor movement (no problem, the >kernel will catch it anyway)? > The behavior will depend on the panel. Going bananas is a possibility. It also looks like VBT is being used to indicate that some panels have minimum idle frame requirements, so you really should be using VBT + 1 to ensure the hardware always outputs at least the VBT specified number of frames. >Cheers, Daniel > >> --- >> 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 47e9d71..8cfbbc2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c >> @@ -2178,7 +2178,7 @@ 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; /* 2 is the minimum allowed */ >> 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
