[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid vblank counter for gen9+

[Vivi, Rodrigo]

Oh, actually please just ignore this patch completely.
More work here need to be done. This apparently helped on the issue
that I was facing here but doesnt' solve completely.

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 07:58 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 11:34 +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:00:47AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > Framecounter register is read-only so DMC cannot restore it
> > > after exiting DC5 and DC6.
> > > 
> > > Easiest way to go is to avoid the counter and use vblank
> > > interruptions for this platform and for all the following
> > > ones since DMC came to stay. At least while we can't change
> > > this register to read-write.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 7 +++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c 
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > index 25a8937..c294a4b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > @@ -4556,7 +4556,10 @@ void intel_irq_init(struct 
> > > drm_i915_private 
> > > *dev_priv)
> > >  
> > >  	pm_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->pm_qos, 
> > > PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE);
> > >  
> > > -	if (IS_GEN2(dev_priv)) {
> > > +	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 9) {
> > > +		dev->max_vblank_count = 0;
> > > +		dev->driver->get_vblank_counter = 
> > > g4x_get_vblank_counter;
> > > +	} else if (IS_GEN2(dev_priv)) {
> > >  		dev->max_vblank_count = 0;
> > >  		dev->driver->get_vblank_counter = 
> > > i8xx_get_vblank_counter;
> > >  	} else if (IS_G4X(dev_priv) || INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen 
> > > > = 5) {
> > > @@ -4572,7 +4575,7 @@ void intel_irq_init(struct drm_i915_private 
> > > *dev_priv)
> > >  	 * Gen2 doesn't have a hardware frame counter and so 
> > > depends on
> > >  	 * vblank interrupts to produce sane vblank seuquence 
> > > numbers.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if (!IS_GEN2(dev_priv))
> > > +	if (!IS_GEN2(dev_priv) && !INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 
> > > 9)
> > 
> > I think this should be:
> > 
> > if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 9)
> 
> Yeap, < 9 is better...
> 
> > 
> > If gen < 9, then IS_GEN2 is always true, also ! has higher 
> > precedence
> > than >=, so you're essentially comparing whether the logical 
> > negation 
> > of
> > INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen is >= 9.
> 
> but it is also !gen2
> 
> So I believe the right is
> 
> if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 9 && !IS_GEN2(dev_priv))
> 
> agree?
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Kind regards, David