From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08D6C433ED for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9243860FF3 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9243860FF3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3B06ED84; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2F486ED84; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:42:39 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: 6HUZ5VbNbHQAt3zXjHklm2gHXlSc42b53CVE0NeORMsfyUrYJo6r3Y7t4CyKNbB4uqQ272W6Le BM+nrRijMUjw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9941"; a="190105800" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,296,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="190105800" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2021 14:42:39 -0700 IronPort-SDR: o3d/DUoF9LzhOTidnrLAjU24MXOKJUcrfv8km+FJG/hkSq+LUr4zq66niCenwopMeyO8+cYDe0 BcUY1eVp/f2A== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,296,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="456162371" Received: from labuser-z97x-ud5h.jf.intel.com (HELO labuser-Z97X-UD5H) ([10.165.21.211]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2021 14:42:38 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:49:13 -0700 From: "Navare, Manasi" To: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Message-ID: <20210401214908.GA24310@labuser-Z97X-UD5H> References: <20210309111350.3be0543f@eldfell> <20210318230126.GA1900@labuser-Z97X-UD5H> <20210319205413.GA6359@labuser-Z97X-UD5H> <20210319212624.GA6560@labuser-Z97X-UD5H> <20210325220127.GA28898@labuser-Z97X-UD5H> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/atomic: Add the crtc to affected crtc only if uapi.enable = true X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx , dri-devel , Daniel Stone Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:15:22PM +0200, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:01:29PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:27:59PM +0200, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:26:24PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:12:41PM +0200, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:56:24PM +0200, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wro= te: > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrot= e: > > > > > > > > So basically we see this warning only in case of bigjoiner = when > > > > > > > > drm_atomic_check gets called without setting the state->all= ow_modeset flag. > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > Considering the code is 'WARN(!state->allow_modeset, ...' that > > > > > > > fact should be rather obvious. > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > > So do you think that in i915, in intel_atomic_check_bigjoin= er() we should only > > > > > > > > steal the crtc when allow_modeset flag is set in state? > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > No. If you fully read drm_atomic_check_only() you will observe > > > > > > > that it will reject any commit w/ allow_modeset=3D=3Dfalse wh= ich = > > > > > > > needs a modeset. And it does that before the WARN. > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > So you're barking up the wrong tree here. The problem I think > > > > > > > is that you're just computing requested_crtcs wrong. > > > > > > = > > > > > > So here in this case, requested CRTC =3D 0x1 since it requests = modeset on CRTC 0 > > > > > > Now in teh atomic check, it steals the slave CRTC 1 and hence a= ffected CRTC comes out > > > > > > as 0x3 and hence the mismatch. > > > > > = > > > > > Hmm. How can it be 0x3 if we filtered out the uapi.enable=3D=3Dfa= lse case? > > > > > = > > > > = > > > > Yes if I add that condition like in this patch then it correctly ca= lculates > > > > the affected crtc bitmask as only 0x1 since it doesnt include the s= lave crtc. > > > > So with this patch, requested crtc =3D 0x 1, affected crtc =3D 0x1 > > > > = > > > > If this looks good then this fixes our bigjoiner warnings. > > > > Does this patch look good to you as is then? > > > = > > > I think you still need to fix the requested_crtcs calculation. > > = > > We calculate requested crtc at the beginning : > > for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, new_crtc_state, i) > > requested_crtc |=3D drm_crtc_mask(crtc); > > = > > Are you suggesting adding this to after: > > if (config->funcs->atomic_check) { > > ret =3D config->funcs->atomic_check(state->dev, state); > > = > > if (ret) { > > DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("atomic driver check for %p fa= iled: %d\n", > > state, ret); > > return ret; > > } > > requested_crtc |=3D drm_crtc_mask(crtc); // Here it will have requ= ested crtc =3D 0x11 > > } > > = > > in this case here the state should already have master crtc 0 and slave= crtc 1 > > and that requested crtc should already be 0x11 > > = > > Then in that case we dont need any special check for calculating affect= ed crtc, that also will be 0x11 > = > All I'm saying is that you're currently calculating requested_crtcs and > affected_crtcs differently. So I'm not at all surprised that they might > not match. > I dont get your point yet. requested crtc is calculated before the atomic check call and we dont check= for crtc uapi.enable to be true. And hence requested crtc =3D CRTC 0 =3D 0x2 After I added the check in this patch where affected crtc will include only= the crtcs that have uapi.enable =3D true then it perfectly matches the requested crtc and return 0x2 but without th= is check when the calculation of requested and affected crtc is the same is where we see the affected crtc = =3D CRTC 0 and 1 =3D 0x3 So when the calculation is different infcat we dont see the mismatch What is your point here? Manasi > -- = > Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 > Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx