2015-06-30 20:42 GMT-03:00 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Let's do a frontbuffer invalidation on dirty fb.
> To be used for DIRTYFB drm ioctl.
>
> This patch solves the biggest PSR known issue, that is
> missed screen updates during boot, mainly when there is a splash
> screen involved like plymouth.
>
> Plymoth will do a modeset over ioctl that flushes frontbuffer
> tracking and PSR gets back to work while it cannot track the
> screen updates and exit properly. However plymouth also uses
> a dirtyfb ioctl whenever updating the screen. So let's use it
> to invalidate PSR back again.
>
> v2: Remove ORIGIN_FB_DIRTY and use ORIGIN_GTT instead since dirty
> callback is just called after few screen updates and not on
> everyone as pointed by Daniel.
>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 724b0e3..b55b1b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -14393,9 +14393,27 @@ static int intel_user_framebuffer_create_handle(struct drm_framebuffer *fb,
> return drm_gem_handle_create(file, &obj->base, handle);
> }
>
> +static int intel_user_framebuffer_dirty(struct drm_framebuffer *fb,
> + struct drm_file *file,
> + unsigned flags, unsigned color,
> + struct drm_clip_rect *clips,
> + unsigned num_clips)
You don't need the white space on the lines above, just the tabs.
> +{
> + struct drm_device *dev = fb->dev;
> + struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fb = to_intel_framebuffer(fb);
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = intel_fb->obj;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> + intel_fb_obj_invalidate(obj, ORIGIN_GTT);
As far as I understood from my brief investigation, the dirty IOCTL
just says "hey, I'm done writing on the memory, you can flush things
now", and if the user writes on the buffer again later, it will need
to call the dirty IOCTL again. So shouldn't we call
intel_fb_obj_flush(obj, false) here? It seems this was also pointed by
Daniel on the first review. It would be better because it would allow
us to actually keep PSR/FBC enabled.
Also, don't forget that switching to intel_fb_obj_flush() will allow
you to kill the struct_mutex lock.
BTW, I'm also looking forward to see the IGT test suggested by Daniel :)
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct drm_framebuffer_funcs intel_fb_funcs = {
> .destroy = intel_user_framebuffer_destroy,
> .create_handle = intel_user_framebuffer_create_handle,
> + .dirty = intel_user_framebuffer_dirty,
> };
>
> static
> --
> 2.1.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
