| Message ID | 1466755187-29418-1-git-send-email-michel@daenzer.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:59:47PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> > > Consolidate the _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS handling between drm_wait_vblank > and drm_queue_vblank_event. > > This is a cleanup spotted while working on other changes. > > (The way it was previously handled could also theoretically result in > drm_queue_vblank_event unnecessarily bumping vblwait->request.sequence, > if the vblank counter happened to increment between the > drm_vblank_count(_and_time) calls in each function, but that's unlikely) > > Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris
On 24.06.2016 17:17, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:59:47PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> >> >> Consolidate the _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS handling between drm_wait_vblank >> and drm_queue_vblank_event. >> >> This is a cleanup spotted while working on other changes. >> >> (The way it was previously handled could also theoretically result in >> drm_queue_vblank_event unnecessarily bumping vblwait->request.sequence, >> if the vblank counter happened to increment between the >> drm_vblank_count(_and_time) calls in each function, but that's unlikely) >> >> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Thanks, Chris! Daniel, can you pick this up?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 04:04:41PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 24.06.2016 17:17, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:59:47PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> > >> > >> Consolidate the _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS handling between drm_wait_vblank > >> and drm_queue_vblank_event. > >> > >> This is a cleanup spotted while working on other changes. > >> > >> (The way it was previously handled could also theoretically result in > >> drm_queue_vblank_event unnecessarily bumping vblwait->request.sequence, > >> if the vblank counter happened to increment between the > >> drm_vblank_count(_and_time) calls in each function, but that's unlikely) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com> > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Thanks, Chris! > > > Daniel, can you pick this up? Done. Thanks for patch&review. -Daniel
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c index 3c1a6f1..39ea4fc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c @@ -1685,12 +1685,6 @@ static int drm_queue_vblank_event(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe, seq = drm_vblank_count_and_time(dev, pipe, &now); - if ((vblwait->request.type & _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS) && - (seq - vblwait->request.sequence) <= (1 << 23)) { - vblwait->request.sequence = seq + 1; - vblwait->reply.sequence = vblwait->request.sequence; - } - DRM_DEBUG("event on vblank count %d, current %d, crtc %u\n", vblwait->request.sequence, seq, pipe); @@ -1787,6 +1781,11 @@ int drm_wait_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, goto done; } + if ((flags & _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS) && + (seq - vblwait->request.sequence) <= (1 << 23)) { + vblwait->request.sequence = seq + 1; + } + if (flags & _DRM_VBLANK_EVENT) { /* must hold on to the vblank ref until the event fires * drm_vblank_put will be called asynchronously @@ -1794,11 +1793,6 @@ int drm_wait_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, return drm_queue_vblank_event(dev, pipe, vblwait, file_priv); } - if ((flags & _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS) && - (seq - vblwait->request.sequence) <= (1<<23)) { - vblwait->request.sequence = seq + 1; - } - DRM_DEBUG("waiting on vblank count %d, crtc %u\n", vblwait->request.sequence, pipe); vblank->last_wait = vblwait->request.sequence;