Hi Thomas, On 7/28/21 11:17 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 28.07.21 um 20:11 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: >> Hi Dan, >> >> thanks for the quick feedback! >> >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 05:50:34PM +0000, Dan.Sneddon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> wrote: >>> On 7/28/21 8:44 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you >>>> know the content is safe >>>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 03:11:08PM +0000, Dan.Sneddon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 7/28/21 7:00 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>>>>> [You don't often get email from sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this >>>>>> is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] >>>>>> >>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you >>>>>> know the content is safe >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope you can fine to test this patch from Thomas. >>>>>> If this works then we can forget about my attempt to do the same. >>>>> >>>>> I'll test this as soon as I can and let you know. >>>> >>>> Thanks, crossing my fingers... (which explains the funny spelling from >>>> time to time) >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> So I ran the test on an A5D27 XULT board with a PDA5 display. Our >>> graphics demos that come with our linux4sam releases seem to run just >>> fine. modetest -v seems to run just fine. However, vbltest returns >>> "drmWaitVBlank (relative) failed ret: -1". I don't understand why >>> modetest -v is working and vbltest isn't, but that's what I'm seeing. > > Thanks for testing. > >> >> Strange indeed. >> >> >> Just to be sure... >> Can you confirm that vbltest is working OK *before* this patch? > > Yes, can you please verify that it regressed. If so, this would mean > that the driver misses vblank interrupts with the patch applied. Yes, unfortunately the vbltest works before this patch, but fails after this patch is applied. Best Regards, Dan > > Best regards > Thomas > >> >> Sam >> >
