Re: drm: Branch 'master'

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Eric Anholt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]

On Tue,  9 Feb 2010 00:38:05 -0800 (PST), ickle@kemper.freedesktop.org (Chris Wilson) wrote:
>  intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c |   13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> New commits:
> commit fdcde592c2c48e143251672cf2e82debb07606bd
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Tue Feb 9 08:32:54 2010 +0000
> 
>     intel: Account for potential pinned buffers hogging fences
>     
>     As the kernel reports the total number of fences, we must guess how many
>     fences are likely to be pinned. In the typical system these will be only
>     used by the scanout buffers, of which there may be one per pipe, and any
>     number of manually pinned fenced buffers. So take a conservative guess
>     and reserve two fences for use by the system.
>     
>     Note this reduces the number of fences to 3 for i915 and prior.

(on a non-2.6.33 KMS kernel)

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 254 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace,
Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW
http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

--
_______________________________________________
Dri-patches mailing list
Dri-patches@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-patches

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Zdenek Kabelac]

Dne 27.8.2010 00:50, Eric Anholt napsal(a):
>  include/drm/drm.h    |    4 ++++
>  intel/intel_bufmgr.h |    6 +++++-
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> New commits:
> commit 23287f05cf2443ddf9e028e29beb5bd30979c6cf
> Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> Date:   Thu Aug 26 15:39:28 2010 -0700
> 
>     Avoid use of c++ reserved keyword "virtual" when using a C++ compiler.
>     
>     Avoids requiring nasty hacks around libdrm headers in the new C++
>     parts of Mesa drivers.
> 
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm.h b/include/drm/drm.h
> index a0559eb..2ba7136 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm.h
> @@ -373,7 +373,11 @@ struct drm_buf_pub {
>   */
>  struct drm_buf_map {
>  	int count;		/**< Length of the buffer list */
> +#ifdef __cplusplus
> +	void *virt;
> +#else
>  	void *virtual;		/**< Mmap'd area in user-virtual */
> +#endif
>  	struct drm_buf_pub *list;	/**< Buffer information */
>  };


Quit weird patch....

Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?

Why not simply use i.e.:

     void*  user_virtual;

Or something similar - and avoid using these rather useless ifdefs ?

Zdenek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users 
worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and 
speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
--

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Julien Cristau]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:

> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
> 
Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
which is not a nice thing to do.

Cheers,
Julien

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users 
worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and 
speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
--

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Zdenek Kabelac]

On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
>> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
>>
> Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
> which is not a nice thing to do.
>


Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a view 
of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems the 
API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this change 
doesn't look all that bad.

How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable used 
outside of libdrm ?

Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger issue...

Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of
extern "C" might be handy for such case ?

Zdenek


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users 
worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and 
speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
--

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Eric Anholt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:04 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> >
> >> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
> >>
> > Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
> > which is not a nice thing to do.
> >
> 
> 
> Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a view 
> of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems the 
> API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this change 
> doesn't look all that bad.
> 
> How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable used 
> outside of libdrm ?
> 
> Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger issue...
> 
> Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of
> extern "C" might be handy for such case ?

Uh, you claim the API has changed, but I'm not aware of any circumstance
since TTM removal where upgrading libdrm on Intel should have broken
either API or ABI for its users.  Can you back that up?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users 
worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and 
speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Zdenek Kabelac]

Dne 28.8.2010 05:55, Eric Anholt napsal(a):
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:04 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
>>>>
>>> Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
>>> which is not a nice thing to do.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a view 
>> of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems the 
>> API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this change 
>> doesn't look all that bad.
>>
>> How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable used 
>> outside of libdrm ?
>>
>> Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger issue...
>>
>> Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of
>> extern "C" might be handy for such case ?
> 
> Uh, you claim the API has changed, but I'm not aware of any circumstance
> since TTM removal where upgrading libdrm on Intel should have broken
> either API or ABI for its users.  Can you back that up?

Ok - I'm remembering this issue:

Essentially I've had idea to try to bisect for this problem:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26937

As I'm quite sure, that there were times were I could use fullscreen for flash
without fear of having to restart my desktop.

So I've tried just some random older git versions of  libdrm & intel driver -
there were some minor compilations issue (I guess some list defines conflicts
and few other minor things for compilation).

However compiled driver & library actually never worked and all I got was
usually black screen.  It's probably hard to judge if the problem is kernel
driver (using usually quite fresh vanilla git tree) or Xorg from Fedora
Rawhide can't work with some slightly older libdrm/intel.  It probably not
reasonable to spend time to detect where exactly is problem - all I want to
point out is, that some internal API must changed significantly so while I
could usually boot with 2 year old kernel, I cannot use few months old
drm&intel driver.

And back to this issue -  if this variable is used a lot by other projects,
than this commit is probably ok - though looks ugly.  But if there is just one
project which uses it, than it's probably better to break API and keep it
clean and use same variable for C & C++ programs.

Zdenek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:

Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
--

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Eric Anholt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3092 bytes --]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:17:43 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
> Dne 28.8.2010 05:55, Eric Anholt napsal(a):
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:04 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
> >>>>
> >>> Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
> >>> which is not a nice thing to do.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a view 
> >> of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems the 
> >> API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this change 
> >> doesn't look all that bad.
> >>
> >> How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable used 
> >> outside of libdrm ?
> >>
> >> Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger issue...
> >>
> >> Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of
> >> extern "C" might be handy for such case ?
> > 
> > Uh, you claim the API has changed, but I'm not aware of any circumstance
> > since TTM removal where upgrading libdrm on Intel should have broken
> > either API or ABI for its users.  Can you back that up?
> 
> Ok - I'm remembering this issue:
> 
> Essentially I've had idea to try to bisect for this problem:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26937
> 
> As I'm quite sure, that there were times were I could use fullscreen for flash
> without fear of having to restart my desktop.
> 
> So I've tried just some random older git versions of  libdrm & intel driver -
 > there were some minor compilations issue (I guess some list defines conflicts
> and few other minor things for compilation).
> 
> However compiled driver & library actually never worked and all I got was
> usually black screen.  It's probably hard to judge if the problem is kernel
> driver (using usually quite fresh vanilla git tree) or Xorg from Fedora
> Rawhide can't work with some slightly older libdrm/intel.  It probably not
> reasonable to spend time to detect where exactly is problem - all I want to
> point out is, that some internal API must changed significantly so while I
> could usually boot with 2 year old kernel, I cannot use few months old
> drm&intel driver.
> 
> And back to this issue -  if this variable is used a lot by other projects,
> than this commit is probably ok - though looks ugly.  But if there is just one
> project which uses it, than it's probably better to break API and keep it
> clean and use same variable for C & C++ programs.

For bisecting, just hold libdrm at the new version and bisect in 2d,
unless your initial test of old+old vs old+new of each component points
at libdrm (in which case, hold the 2d driver old and bisect across
libdrm).

New drivers do require new symbols, but libdrm is API and ABI stable,
exactly so that people can bisect successfully.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 247 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:

Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Zdenek Kabelac]

Dne 1.9.2010 02:53, Eric Anholt napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:17:43 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dne 28.8.2010 05:55, Eric Anholt napsal(a):
>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:04 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users,
>>>>> which is not a nice thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a view 
>>>> of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems the 
>>>> API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this change 
>>>> doesn't look all that bad.
>>>>
>>>> How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable used 
>>>> outside of libdrm ?
>>>>
>>>> Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger issue...
>>>>
>>>> Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of
>>>> extern "C" might be handy for such case ?
>>>
>>> Uh, you claim the API has changed, but I'm not aware of any circumstance
>>> since TTM removal where upgrading libdrm on Intel should have broken
>>> either API or ABI for its users.  Can you back that up?
>>
>> Ok - I'm remembering this issue:
>>
>> Essentially I've had idea to try to bisect for this problem:
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26937
>>
>> As I'm quite sure, that there were times were I could use fullscreen for flash
>> without fear of having to restart my desktop.
>>
>> So I've tried just some random older git versions of  libdrm & intel driver -
>  > there were some minor compilations issue (I guess some list defines conflicts
>> and few other minor things for compilation).
>>
>> However compiled driver & library actually never worked and all I got was
>> usually black screen.  It's probably hard to judge if the problem is kernel
>> driver (using usually quite fresh vanilla git tree) or Xorg from Fedora
>> Rawhide can't work with some slightly older libdrm/intel.  It probably not
>> reasonable to spend time to detect where exactly is problem - all I want to
>> point out is, that some internal API must changed significantly so while I
>> could usually boot with 2 year old kernel, I cannot use few months old
>> drm&intel driver.
>>
>> And back to this issue -  if this variable is used a lot by other projects,
>> than this commit is probably ok - though looks ugly.  But if there is just one
>> project which uses it, than it's probably better to break API and keep it
>> clean and use same variable for C & C++ programs.
> 
> For bisecting, just hold libdrm at the new version and bisect in 2d,
> unless your initial test of old+old vs old+new of each component points
> at libdrm (in which case, hold the 2d driver old and bisect across
> libdrm).
> 
> New drivers do require new symbols, but libdrm is API and ABI stable,
> exactly so that people can bisect successfully.

Ok - I made a closer look at the problem - and bisected for a reason my
current Xorg server shows black screen for older version of Intel driver.

It looks like the key issue is some API change in Xorg related to this Intel
driver commit: 8700673157fdd3a87ad5150f2f30823261fec519
(Adapt glyphs for changes in devPrivates API, Jun 7 2010, Chris Wilson)

This is effectively the oldest version of Intel driver which currently seems
to work with my (recently upgraded) xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.9.0-7.fc15.x86_64.

It seems like cherry-picking to make this usable for older version of Intel
git tree seems to be very complicated so doing bisect looks like very hard
task in this case.

I'm open to some ideas how could I eventually try to resolve/help with my
fullscreen bug (id=26937).

Anyway this seems to show that keeping API stable at one small library and
breaking it in Xorg server itself doesn't make things better after all....

Is there any other way (except essentially completely reinstalling my whole
system and trying to figure out which combination of Xorg and driver still
works ok for full screen??)

Would it help to post some /sys  prints which would show why the screen is
locked in 'fullscreen' picture and there is no way to restore it back ?

Zdenek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automate Storage Tiering Simply
Optimize IT performance and efficiency through flexible, powerful, 
automated storage tiering capabilities. View this brief to learn how
you can reduce costs and improve performance. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-sfdev2dev
--

Re: drm: Branch 'master'

[Michel Dänzer]

On 2018-03-30 04:51 AM, Chunming Zhou wrote:
>  include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h |    4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> New commits:
> commit 2fa58c77fb9e563219f8ec647b9ddf52f3390ed2
> Author: Rex Zhu <Rex.Zhu@amd.com>
> Date:   Tue Mar 20 14:08:09 2018 +0800
> 
>     headers: sync up amdgpu_drm.h with drm-next
>     
>     Add sensor_info type
>     AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_STABLE_PSTATE_GFX_MCLK
>     AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_STABLE_PSTATE_GFX_SCLK
>     
>     Reviewed-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Rex Zhu <Rex.Zhu@amd.com>
> 
> diff --git a/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h b/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h
> index a023b476..f784f248 100644
> --- a/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h
> +++ b/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h
> @@ -656,6 +656,10 @@ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_data {
>  	#define AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_VDDNB		0x6
>  	/* Subquery id: Query graphics voltage */
>  	#define AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_VDDGFX		0x7
> +	/* Subquery id: Query GPU stable pstate shader clock */
> +	#define AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_STABLE_PSTATE_GFX_SCLK		0x8
> +	/* Subquery id: Query GPU stable pstate memory clock */
> +	#define AMDGPU_INFO_SENSOR_STABLE_PSTATE_GFX_MCLK		0x9
>  /* Number of VRAM page faults on CPU access. */
>  #define AMDGPU_INFO_NUM_VRAM_CPU_PAGE_FAULTS	0x1E
>  #define AMDGPU_INFO_VRAM_LOST_COUNTER		0x1F

In the future, please follow the process described in include/drm/README
for syncing this header with the kernel.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel