On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:

> With Software tracking we are going to PSR sooner than we should and staying
> with blank screens in many cases.
>
> Using 2 identical frames to detect idleness is safier.
>
> Discovered and validated with refactored igt/kms_sink_psr_crc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index f79473b..a796831 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1813,7 +1813,7 @@ static void intel_edp_psr_enable_source(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>       struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
>       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>       uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> -     uint32_t idle_frames = 1;
> +     uint32_t idle_frames = 2;

Hm, that sounds like we allow psr before it is really possible. And we
still delay the actual re-enable work by 100ms, so it very much looks like
something is broken here.

Which exact subcases do fail?

-Daniel

>       uint32_t val = 0x0;
>       const uint32_t link_entry_time = EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
>       bool only_standby = false;
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx