On 31.07.2014 16:54, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>> I think it would be better to refactor drm_wait_vblank() than to
>> reinvent it.
>
> That's the ioctl implementation which spends most of its time decoding
> ioctl structures. If we take that out
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On 31.07.2014 16:54, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>>> I think it would be better to refactor drm_wait_vblank() than to
>>> reinvent it.
>>
>> That's the ioctl implementation which spends most
On 31.07.2014 00:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:36:21PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:20:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:32:28PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On W
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> I think it would be better to refactor drm_wait_vblank() than to
> reinvent it.
That's the ioctl implementation which spends most of its time decoding
ioctl structures. If we take that out then there's about half a line
which would be shared
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:20:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:32:28PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > >> On 30.07.2014 06:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >>
On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>> On 30.07.2014 06:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> + * due to lack of driver support or because the crtc is off.
>>> + */
>>> +void drm_crtc_vblank_wait(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>>> +{
>>> + drm
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:36:21PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:20:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:32:28PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Miche
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:06:38PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:24:06PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
> > [...]
> > > + re
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:36:21PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:20:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:32:28PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Miche
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:24:06PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
> [...]
> > + ret = wait_event_timeout(dev->vblank[crtc].queue,
> > +
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
[...]
> + ret = wait_event_timeout(dev->vblank[crtc].queue,
> + C, msecs_to_jiffies(100));
100 milliseconds looks like a very a
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:32:28PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On 30.07.2014 17:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> >> On 30.07.2014 06:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> + * due to lack of driver support or because the crtc is off.
> >>> + */
On 30.07.2014 06:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> As usual in both a crtc index and a struct drm_crtc * version.
>
> The function assumes that no one drivers their display below 10Hz, and
> it will complain if the vblank wait takes longer than that.
>
> v2: Also check dev->max_vblank_counter since some
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:33AM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On 30.07.2014 06:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > As usual in both a crtc index and a struct drm_crtc * version.
> >
> > The function assumes that no one drivers their display below 10Hz, and
> > it will complain if the vblank wait takes
As usual in both a crtc index and a struct drm_crtc * version.
The function assumes that no one drivers their display below 10Hz, and
it will complain if the vblank wait takes longer than that.
v2: Also check dev->max_vblank_counter since some drivers register a
fake get_vblank_counter function.
15 matches
Mail list logo