On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 19:00 -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:19:40AM +0300, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote: > > Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a > > time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole > > operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once > > it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This > > regression was introduced in: > > > > commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f > > Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800 > > > > drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3 > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431 > > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 21 ++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 4e3f302..6ef57e6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ static void ironlake_pch_clock_get(struct intel_crtc *crtc, > > struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config); > > > > static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > > - struct drm_atomic_state *state); > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state, > > + bool check); > > static int intel_framebuffer_init(struct drm_device *dev, > > struct intel_framebuffer *ifb, > > struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 *mode_cmd, > > @@ -10096,7 +10097,7 @@ retry: > > > > drm_mode_copy(&crtc_state->base.mode, mode); > > > > - if (intel_set_mode(crtc, state)) { > > + if (intel_set_mode(crtc, state, true)) { > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("failed to set mode on load-detect pipe\n"); > > if (old->release_fb) > > old->release_fb->funcs->destroy(old->release_fb); > > @@ -10170,7 +10171,7 @@ void intel_release_load_detect_pipe(struct drm_connector *connector, > > if (ret) > > goto fail; > > > > - ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state); > > + ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state, true); > > if (ret) > > goto fail; > > > > @@ -12646,20 +12647,22 @@ static int __intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *modeset_crtc, > > } > > > > static int intel_set_mode_with_config(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > > - struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config) > > + struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config, > > + bool check) > > This parameter just controls whether you check the state or not in this > patch, but in patch #2 it also starts having more of a behavioral impact > (i.e., "don't updated staged output configuration"). I wonder if > picking a different name for this parameter would help avoid any > confusion? Thanks for reviewing! I just sent a v2 with the parameter name changed to force_restore and the memory leak fixed. > Otherwise, this patch looks good: > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> > > Off-topic, but speaking of 'check' I wonder whether we should also > rename the intel_modeset_check_state function and related functions at > some point in the future. Every time I see that name in the code it > bothers me because I expect it to be related to atomic check (i.e., > something that runs before we touch hardware) rather than confirming > that hardware programming was successful. It feels more like an > assert/confirm/verify function to me. I'm not sure what would be a better name, but I agree the current one is confusing. Ander > > Matt > > > { > > int ret; > > > > ret = __intel_set_mode(crtc, pipe_config); > > > > - if (ret == 0) > > + if (ret == 0 && check) > > intel_modeset_check_state(crtc->dev); > > > > return ret; > > } > > > > static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > > - struct drm_atomic_state *state) > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state, > > + bool check) > > { > > struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config; > > int ret = 0; > > @@ -12670,7 +12673,7 @@ static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > > goto out; > > } > > > > - ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(crtc, pipe_config); > > + ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(crtc, pipe_config, check); > > if (ret) > > goto out; > > > > @@ -12747,7 +12750,7 @@ void intel_crtc_restore_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > > intel_modeset_setup_plane_state(state, crtc, &crtc->mode, > > crtc->primary->fb, crtc->x, crtc->y); > > > > - ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state); > > + ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state, false); > > if (ret) > > drm_atomic_state_free(state); > > } > > @@ -12947,7 +12950,7 @@ static int intel_crtc_set_config(struct drm_mode_set *set) > > > > primary_plane_was_visible = primary_plane_visible(set->crtc); > > > > - ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(set->crtc, pipe_config); > > + ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(set->crtc, pipe_config, true); > > > > if (ret == 0 && > > pipe_config->base.enable && > > -- > > 2.1.0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
