On 07/07/17 10:34 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 07/07/17 12:04 AM, Keith Packard wrote: >> Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: >> >>>> @@ -317,6 +317,9 @@ int via_driver_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev) >>>> if (!dev_priv) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> + if (dev->driver->get_vblank_counter) >>>> + dev->max_vblank_count = 0xffffffff; >>> >>> What's the purpose of this? All drivers providing get_vblank_counter >>> should already initialize max_vblank_count correctly. >> >> Yeah, I couldn't prove that this driver did that, > > Which driver? > >> and as Daniel says, we haven't ever audited the drivers to make sure >> they do. > > I don't think that's what he meant, rather that with the change above, > all drivers have to be audited to make sure the added assignment doesn't > clobber an earlier assignment by the driver.
... and if there are any drivers that set dev->driver->get_vblank_counter but don't set dev->max_vblank_count to a non-0 value, that the hardware counter actually has 32 bits. I'd say don't bother, just drop this hunk. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
