Op 07-07-15 om 11:33 schreef Daniel Vetter: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 09:08:29AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> No point in applying vblank evasion if there's nothing to evade. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> index 71fc35d814d1..2eaccdc59a9a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> @@ -13288,7 +13288,10 @@ static int intel_atomic_commit(struct drm_device *dev, >> if (!modeset) >> intel_pre_plane_update(intel_crtc); >> >> - drm_atomic_helper_commit_planes_on_crtc(crtc_state); >> + if (crtc->state->planes_changed || >> + to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state)->update_pipe) >> + drm_atomic_helper_commit_planes_on_crtc(crtc_state); > What if we change some crtc property which is updated under vblank > evasion, but no plane state? e.g. background color. Imo trying to optimize > this doesn't speed up any common case, but makes things more fragile. > update_pipe = true. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
