On Fri, 8 May 2015 12:10:15 -0300
Ismael Luceno <ismael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2015 16:41:48 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 May 2015, Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:12:18PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > [cc'ing the authors]
> > >>
> > >> This has been posted earlier [1] and it has review to be
> > >> addressed [2].
> > >>
> > >> BR,
> > >> Jani.
> > >
> > > I agree with Ander's response in [2]...we can't call
> > > intel_update_watermarks() in the commit function because we're
> > > under vblank evasion. We should already be flagging the
> > > transaction as needing a watermark update in
> > > intel_check_cursor_plane(), and that flag will be acted upon
> > > immediately after the commit functions are done running, once
> > > we've re-enabled interrupts.
> > >
> > > Note that our current codebase looks a bit different since we've
> > > dropped intel_crtc->cursor_{width,height}. So the relevant check
> > > in intel_check_cursor_plane() now looks like:
> > >
> > > if (plane->state->crtc_w != state->base.crtc_w)
> > > intel_crtc->atomic.update_wm = true;
> > >
> > > Is there a bugzilla open on this issue with more details?
> >
> > Not that I know of. Ismael?
>
> Didn't found one at the time.
>
> I apologize for the lack of communication, have been too busy job
> hunting these weeks.
>
> Chris comments prompted me to double-check. It seems one of Matt's
> commits solves the issue [0], it just didn't hit mainline until April
> 20 [1], long after v4.0.
>
> [0] 3dd512fbda0d87d1c3fb44bf878b262baee98fb6
> [1] 14aa02449064541217836b9f3d3295e241d5ae9c
Sorry, meant Matt's comment about the current codebase; my brain seems
not to be working well today.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
