Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: wait for actual vblank, not just 20ms

2010-08-18 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:48:50 +0100 > Owain Ainsworth wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:00:36PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> > Waiting for a hard coded 20ms isn't always enough to make sure a vblank >> > period has actually occurred, so

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: wait for actual vblank, not just 20ms

2010-08-18 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:48:50 +0100 Owain Ainsworth wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:00:36PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Waiting for a hard coded 20ms isn't always enough to make sure a vblank > > period has actually occurred, so add code to make sure we really have > > passed through a vbla

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: wait for actual vblank, not just 20ms

2010-08-18 Thread Owain Ainsworth
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:00:36PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Waiting for a hard coded 20ms isn't always enough to make sure a vblank > period has actually occurred, so add code to make sure we really have > passed through a vblank period (or that the pipe is off when disabling). > > This preven

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: wait for actual vblank, not just 20ms

2010-08-18 Thread Jesse Barnes
Waiting for a hard coded 20ms isn't always enough to make sure a vblank period has actually occurred, so add code to make sure we really have passed through a vblank period (or that the pipe is off when disabling). This prevents problems with mode setting and link training, and seems to fix a bug