[Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC] drm/i915: reduce cursor size for GEN5 hardware

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello,

On 02/01/2017 03:37 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:41:08PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 31-01-17 om 20:13 schreef Uwe Kleine-König:
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:03:26AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>> Op 31-01-17 om 09:09 schreef Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>> Just curious, does this help?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>> index ae2c0bb4b2e8..13de4c526ca6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>> @@ -1838,7 +1838,7 @@ static uint32_t ilk_compute_cur_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state *cstate,
>>>>  	 * this is necessary to avoid flickering.
>>>>  	 */
>>>>  	int cpp = 4;
>>>> -	int width = pstate->base.visible ? pstate->base.crtc_w : 64;
>>>> +	int width = 256;
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (!cstate->base.active)
>>>>  		return 0;
>>>>
>>> On a kernel with this patch applied I cannot reproduce the flickering. I
>>> keep that kernel running but expect that it also fixes the crash.
>>
>> Ok that's good news.
>>
>> Maybe ville or matt can comment whether this patch is the right fix?
> 
> Well, it's just extending the hack even further. The right fix would be
> to fix the wm programming sequence to respect the frame boundaries
> correctly (ie. my old vblank based wm stuff).

so I wonder how this goes forward. The situation seems to be well
understood, but other than testing patches I don't know what to do (and
there is currently no patch to test).

Best regards
Uwe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20170207/049f39ff/attachment.sig>