On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:15:25AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > 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.ro...@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>> 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.
One special case after another. Yuck. Not to mention that the plane disable isn't even atomic in the current code, which can look ugly. > > 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. Correctly perhaps, but not in an obvious way. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
