On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:33:49PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > Asking for the initial vblank count by specifying and absolute vblank count > of 0 > doesn't make much sense. Switch to a relative query instead. > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > --- > tests/kms_setmode.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/kms_setmode.c b/tests/kms_setmode.c > index 206d360607bb..ed5d97442255 100644 > --- a/tests/kms_setmode.c > +++ b/tests/kms_setmode.c > @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static void check_timings(int crtc_idx, const > drmModeModeInfo *kmode) > > memset(&wait, 0, sizeof(wait)); > wait.request.type = kmstest_get_vbl_flag(crtc_idx); > - wait.request.type |= DRM_VBLANK_ABSOLUTE | DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS; > + wait.request.type |= DRM_VBLANK_RELATIVE | DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS;
Looking at drm_wait_vblank_is_query() in drm_vblank.c you also want to drop NEXTONMISS. With that: Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> on both. Cheers, Daniel > do_or_die(drmWaitVBlank(drm_fd, &wait)); > > last_seq = wait.reply.sequence; > -- > 2.13.5 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
