[PATCH v2] drm/atomic: Fix bookkeeping with TEST_ONLY, v2.

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 03:05:38PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 27-08-15 om 14:52 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:50:34PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> Op 27-08-15 om 14:48 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:43:35PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>>> Op 27-08-15 om 14:19 schreef Daniel Stone:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 4 August 2015 at 12:34, Maarten Lankhorst
> >>>>> <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Commit ec9f932ed41622d120de52a5b525e4d77b9ef17e
> >>>>>> "drm/atomic: Cleanup on error properly in the atomic ioctl."
> >>>>>> cleaned up some error paths, but didn't fix the TEST_ONLY path.
> >>>>>> In the check only case plane->fb shouldn't be updated, and
> >>>>>> the vblank events should be cleared as on failure.
> >>>>> Bikeshedding a bit ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An early test precludes TEST_ONLY | PAGE_FLIP_EVENT, so you don't need
> >>>>> to mention this in the commit message; in this case, the main change
> >>>>> is about plane->{,old_}fb.
> >>>> Even testing with PAGE_FLIP_EVENT would be useful because
> >>>> event && !crtc_state->active should not be allowed. In that case test
> >>>> could succeed but commit could fail.
> >>> Why would commit fail when the we're in DPMS off? I would suggest it
> >>> should be allowed. The operation would just a be a nop from a HW point
> >>> of view, all the calculation/checks would still be performed.
> >>>
> >> You can commit, just not with PAGE_FLIP_EVENT set when crtc is inactive.
> > What's so special about the event here? Just send it out as soon as the
> > state has been swapped.
> Previously this has been disallowed for legacy page flips.

I don't think so. Speaking for i915, I think we've just rejected legacy page
flips entirely with the pipe is off on account of drm_vblank_get() failing.

> I don't see why this should be relaxed. It just complicates things and you have nothing to stick in for the vblank counter.

We could stick the last vbl count/timestamp in there.

Not allowing means userspace is forced to consider the dpms state
whenever it wants to call the atomic ioctl.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC