Op 01-09-15 om 17:48 schreef Ville Syrjälä: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:30:05AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:24:19AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> Op 29-08-15 om 01:57 schreef Matt Roper: >>>> Way back at the beginning of i915's atomic conversion I added >>>> intel_crtc->atomic as a temporary dumping ground for "stuff to do >>>> outside vblank evasion" flags since CRTC states weren't properly wired >>>> up and tracked at that time. We've had proper CRTC state tracking for a >>>> while now, so there's really no reason for this hack to continue to >>>> exist. Moving forward we want to store intermediate crtc/plane state >>>> data for modesets in addition to the final state, so moving these fields >>>> into the proper state object allows us to properly compute them for both >>>> the intermediate and final state. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> Can I shoot this patch down? It's better to add a field 'wm_changed' >>> to the crtc_state, which gets reset to false for each crtc_state >>> duplication. It's needed for checking if a cs pageflip can be done for >>> atomic. It would remove the duplication of some checks there. >>> >>> The other atomic state members will die soon. I already have some >>> patches to achieve that. :) >>> >>> I'm not sure if an intermediate state is a good idea. Any code that >>> disables a crtc should only be looking at the old state. >>> pre_plane_update runs all stuff in preparation for disabling planes, >>> while post_plane_update runs everything needed for enabling planes. So >>> no need to split it up I think, maybe put in some intermediate >>> watermarks in intel_atomic_state, but no need for a full crtc_state. >> Well, the intermediate state stuff was requested by Ville in response to >> my watermark series, so I posted these patches as an RFC to make sure I >> was understanding what he was looking for properly. >> >> Ville, can you comment? > My opinion is that the current "disable is special" way of doing things > is quite horrible. For one it makes it really hard to reason about what > happens to a plane or crtc during the modeset. It's not just off->on, > on->off, or same->same, but can be on->off->on. With the intermediate > state in place, there can only be one transition, so really easy to > think about what's going on. pre_plane_update deals with all stuff related to disabling planes, while post_plane_update deals with changes after enabling. If the crtc goes from on -> off only you could just hammer in the final values after the disable. While for off->on or on->off->on you can put in the final values in .crtc_enable before lighting the pipe. I don't see why wm's would need more transitions. > It'll also mean don't have to sprinkle silly wm update calls all over > the modeset path. They will just get updated in response to the plane > state changes. Same for IPS/FBC etc. IPS and FBC are already calculated correctly in response to modesets. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
