Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
shuang...@intel.com)
Task id: 5820
-Summary-
Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied
PNV -1 281/281
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
shuang...@intel.com)
Task id: 5819
-Summary-
Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied
PNV -1 281/281
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:37:54PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> > This return 0 without setting atomic bits on fb == crtc->cursor->fb
>> > where causing frontbuffer false positives.
>> >
>>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:37:54PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> This return 0 without setting atomic bits on fb == crtc->cursor->fb
> where causing frontbuffer false positives.
>
> According to Daniel:
>
> The original regression seems to have been introduced in the original
> check/commit split:
This return 0 without setting atomic bits on fb == crtc->cursor->fb
where causing frontbuffer false positives.
According to Daniel:
The original regression seems to have been introduced in the original
check/commit split:
commit 757f9a3e5b8a812af0c213099a5b31cb423f4d3c
Author: Gustavo Padovan
D
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:44:19AM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > Atomic bits needs to be set when cursor check function is returning 0
> > and intel_crtc is active.
> >
> > v2: When putting more debug prints I notice the solution was s
Atomic bits needs to be set when cursor check function is returning 0
and intel_crtc is active.
v2: When putting more debug prints I notice the solution was simpler
than I thought. AMS design is solid, just this return was wrong.
Sorry for the noise.
Cc: Matt Roper
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
-
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:32:25AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Matt Roper wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:52:24PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> It seems that one check with one good commit followed by many zeroed
> >> intel_crtc->atomi
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:52:24PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> It seems that one check with one good commit followed by many zeroed
>> intel_crtc->atomic commits is again in place.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by thi
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 05:17:04PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> No, we had solved old frontbuffer false positives... some missing
> flush somewhere at that time...
>
> So, I added a bunch of printk and I insist that it is conceptually
> wrong to set intel_crtc_atomic_commit on check times when you
No, we had solved old frontbuffer false positives... some missing
flush somewhere at that time...
So, I added a bunch of printk and I insist that it is conceptually
wrong to set intel_crtc_atomic_commit on check times when you do
memset(&intel_crtc->atomic, 0, sizeof(intel_crtc->atomic));
on every
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:46:49AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Matt Roper wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> > frontbuffer bits must be updated during com
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:14:10AM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:46:49AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Matt Roper
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -080
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:21:33AM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > frontbuffer bits must be updated during commit times not on atomica
> > > prepare
> > > one, otherwis
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:46:49AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Matt Roper wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> > frontbuffer bits must be updated during com
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> > frontbuffer bits must be updated during commit times not on atomica prepare
>> > one, otherwise we have a risk of
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > frontbuffer bits must be updated during commit times not on atomica prepare
> > one, otherwise we have a risk of false positive.
> >
> > Cc Daniel Vetter
> > Cc: Sonik
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:38:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> frontbuffer bits must be updated during commit times not on atomica prepare
> one, otherwise we have a risk of false positive.
>
> Cc Daniel Vetter
> Cc: Sonika Jindal
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
atomic.fb_bits isn't used at all
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
shuang...@intel.com)
Task id: 5699
-Summary-
Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied
PNV 353/353
frontbuffer bits must be updated during commit times not on atomica prepare
one, otherwise we have a risk of false positive.
Cc Daniel Vetter
Cc: Sonika Jindal
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
di
20 matches
Mail list logo
