On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 at 00:35, Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-12-09 18:02:40, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > Il 02/10/21 00:33, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto: > > > On 11/09/2021 19:39, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > >> [..] > > > I've compared this with the MDP5 driver, where we always wait for PP_DONE > > > interrupt. Would it be enough to always wait for it (= always call > > > dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_tx_complete())? > > > > > > > Jokes apart, yes it would make sense to do that, it's something that works > > at least... but we should verify that such a thing doesn't break new platforms > > (like sm8150 and newer). > > On sm6125 (keeping in mind that we're on llvmpipe, will bring up the GPU > later) none of this hurts the display: > > - Without this patch, so only checking for wait_for_ctl_start; > - With this patch, checking for idle if it was already started; > - With this patch altered to only ever call wait_for_tx_complete (wait > for idle), in place of wait_for_ctl_start. > > Working in the sense that glxgears, which actually reports a framerate > of approx 170 despite being on llvmpipe on an SoC that is still in > snail-mode, seems to update (commit) the panel smoothly on every > occasion. > > On this note, does it perhaps make more sense to call the "internal" > _dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_idle function directly, instead of going > through the "public" dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_tx_complete which > seems solely intended to handle the wait_for_tx_complete callback? Either one would work. The main difference is the error message. Do you want to see it here if the wait times out or not? -- With best wishes Dmitry
