On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 19:00 -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:19:40AM +0300, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote:
> > Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a
> > time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole
> > operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once
> > it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This
> > regression was introduced in:
> >
> > commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f
> > Author: Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org>
> > Date: Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800
> >
> > drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3
> >
> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431
> > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira
> > <ander.conselvan.de.olive...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 4e3f302..6ef57e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ static void ironlake_pch_clock_get(struct intel_crtc
> > *crtc,
> > struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config);
> >
> > static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > - struct drm_atomic_state *state);
> > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > + bool check);
> > static int intel_framebuffer_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> > struct intel_framebuffer *ifb,
> > struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 *mode_cmd,
> > @@ -10096,7 +10097,7 @@ retry:
> >
> > drm_mode_copy(&crtc_state->base.mode, mode);
> >
> > - if (intel_set_mode(crtc, state)) {
> > + if (intel_set_mode(crtc, state, true)) {
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("failed to set mode on load-detect pipe\n");
> > if (old->release_fb)
> > old->release_fb->funcs->destroy(old->release_fb);
> > @@ -10170,7 +10171,7 @@ void intel_release_load_detect_pipe(struct
> > drm_connector *connector,
> > if (ret)
> > goto fail;
> >
> > - ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state);
> > + ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state, true);
> > if (ret)
> > goto fail;
> >
> > @@ -12646,20 +12647,22 @@ static int __intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc
> > *modeset_crtc,
> > }
> >
> > static int intel_set_mode_with_config(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > - struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config)
> > + struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config,
> > + bool check)
>
> This parameter just controls whether you check the state or not in this
> patch, but in patch #2 it also starts having more of a behavioral impact
> (i.e., "don't updated staged output configuration"). I wonder if
> picking a different name for this parameter would help avoid any
> confusion?
Thanks for reviewing! I just sent a v2 with the parameter name changed
to force_restore and the memory leak fixed.
> Otherwise, this patch looks good:
> Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>
>
> Off-topic, but speaking of 'check' I wonder whether we should also
> rename the intel_modeset_check_state function and related functions at
> some point in the future. Every time I see that name in the code it
> bothers me because I expect it to be related to atomic check (i.e.,
> something that runs before we touch hardware) rather than confirming
> that hardware programming was successful. It feels more like an
> assert/confirm/verify function to me.
I'm not sure what would be a better name, but I agree the current one is
confusing.
Ander
>
> Matt
>
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = __intel_set_mode(crtc, pipe_config);
> >
> > - if (ret == 0)
> > + if (ret == 0 && check)
> > intel_modeset_check_state(crtc->dev);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > - struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > + bool check)
> > {
> > struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config;
> > int ret = 0;
> > @@ -12670,7 +12673,7 @@ static int intel_set_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(crtc, pipe_config);
> > + ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(crtc, pipe_config, check);
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
> >
> > @@ -12747,7 +12750,7 @@ void intel_crtc_restore_mode(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> > intel_modeset_setup_plane_state(state, crtc, &crtc->mode,
> > crtc->primary->fb, crtc->x, crtc->y);
> >
> > - ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state);
> > + ret = intel_set_mode(crtc, state, false);
> > if (ret)
> > drm_atomic_state_free(state);
> > }
> > @@ -12947,7 +12950,7 @@ static int intel_crtc_set_config(struct
> > drm_mode_set *set)
> >
> > primary_plane_was_visible = primary_plane_visible(set->crtc);
> >
> > - ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(set->crtc, pipe_config);
> > + ret = intel_set_mode_with_config(set->crtc, pipe_config, true);
> >
> > if (ret == 0 &&
> > pipe_config->base.enable &&
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
