From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:51:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20140923135127.GF15734@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1407325803-6944-1-git-send-email-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <1407325803-6944-15-git-send-email-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <54147012.40609@gmail.com> <20140915085005.GK4740@phenom.ffwll.local> <87r3z25wpy.fsf@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7956E576 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id y10so4801258wgg.14 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r3z25wpy.fsf@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: Jani Nikula Cc: Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Dave Airlie List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > >> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first > >> objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual > >> regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch to go on top > >> of drm-next, also as tgz in case my e-mail client mangles the patch again, > >> because it's one of those "email hates me" weeks. > > > > Oh dear, I've made a decent mess of all of this really. Picked up to make > > sure it doesn't get lost again. > > After all this nice ping pong our QA has reported a bisected regression > on this commit: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84161 Looks like a minuscule timing change which resulted in us detecting a fifo underrun. Or at least I don't see any other related information that would indicate otherwise ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch