From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x543.google.com (mail-ed1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::543]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AECA86E195 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:58:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x543.google.com with SMTP id s10so3676964edy.9 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT) References: <20200402110729.18305-1-mika.kahola@intel.com> From: Juha-Pekka Heikkila Message-ID: <7b5a847a-607a-74f0-e854-78bbb2a4975d@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:58:29 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200402110729.18305-1-mika.kahola@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_cursor_legacy: Wait for an extra vblank List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Mika Kahola , igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org List-ID: On 2.4.2020 14.07, Mika Kahola wrote: > kms_cursor_legacy IGT subtest 2x-nonblocking-modeset-vs-cursor-atomic > is failing due to busyness while trying to do atomic commit. In case, > we are busy, let's just wait one extra vblank before continuing the > test. > > References: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1062 > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola > --- > tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c b/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c > index d5f95b8d..13aadcce 100644 > --- a/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c > +++ b/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c > @@ -894,7 +894,6 @@ static void two_screens_flip_vs_cursor(igt_display_t *display, int nloops, bool > > arg2[1].x = arg2[1].y = 192; > > - random empty line deletion > igt_display_commit2(display, display->is_atomic ? COMMIT_ATOMIC : COMMIT_LEGACY); > > igt_fork(child, 2) { > @@ -927,6 +926,7 @@ static void two_screens_flip_vs_cursor(igt_display_t *display, int nloops, bool > > if (ret == -EBUSY) { > /* Force completion on both pipes, and generate event. */ > + igt_wait_for_vblank(display->drm_fd, pipe); I was wondering where that ebusy is coming from, it is because of above disabling pipe2? Anyway, would it be better to wait for ebusy to go away if cannot commit during that time? I'm thinking this will fail if whatever causing that ebusy will go past vblank..for example really slow monitor. > igt_display_commit_atomic(display, flags, NULL); > > while (nloops--) { > _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev