On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:57:37AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 27-07-15 om 16:04 schreef Daniel Vetter: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:35:30PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Set active_changed to force a modeset if the panel fitter's force > >> enabled. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hm, shouldn't our fancy fastset logic be able to detect that we've changed > > pfit change here and force a full modeset? Or am I blind again? > > > > Abusing active_changed for this feels a bit tricksy tbh, can't we use > > mode_changed for this? mode_changed is kinda for "crtc configuration that > > needs a full modeset changed", not just for modes. active_changed is > > "enable/disable it, but strictly speaking no need to recompute stuff". > > > > At least that's how the atomic helpers treat it. > > > I think for !PIPE_A it's ok, but pipe_a + edp can use a different power well iirc. > I wasn't sure how that was treated so I went for active_changed instead of mode_changed. Following up from our irc discussion: mode_changed is indeed not a good idea since with the fastset tricks we might accidentally ellide the modeset if intel_pipe_config_compare doesn't catch it (and right now it won't). But I still think active_changed is abuse since active_changed should _not_ result in state recomputation really, the entire point of crtc_state->active is that you can always flip it and it will never fail due to lack of resources. But with your latest patches we have connector_changed to track routing changes, and force_thru is very much a routing change. I think using that would be best. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
