On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:03:34 +0200
ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>
> If someone holds a vblank reference across the modeset, and after/during
> the modeset someone tries to grab a vblank reference, the current code
> won't re-enable the vblank interrupts. That's not good, so instead allow
> the driver to choose whether drm_vblank_get() should always enable the
> interrupts regardless of the refcount.
>
> Combined with the drm_vblank_off/drm_vblank_on reject mechanism, this
> can also be used to allow drivers to use vblank interrupts during
> modeset, whether or not someone is currently holding a vblank reference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c | 3 ++-
> include/drm/drmP.h | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
> index 6e5d820..d613b6f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c
> @@ -897,7 +897,8 @@ int drm_vblank_get(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc)
> }
>
> /* Going from 0->1 means we have to enable interrupts again */
> - if (atomic_add_return(1, &dev->vblank[crtc].refcount) == 1) {
> + if (atomic_add_return(1, &dev->vblank[crtc].refcount) == 1 ||
> + dev->vblank_always_enable_on_get) {
> spin_lock(&dev->vblank_time_lock);
> if (!dev->vblank[crtc].enabled) {
> /* Enable vblank irqs under vblank_time_lock protection.
> diff --git a/include/drm/drmP.h b/include/drm/drmP.h
> index ee40483..3eca0ee 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drmP.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drmP.h
> @@ -1156,6 +1156,12 @@ struct drm_device {
> */
> bool vblank_disable_allowed;
>
> + /*
> + * Should a non-rejected drm_vblank_get() always enable the
> + * vblank interrupt regardless of the current refcount?
> + */
> + bool vblank_always_enable_on_get;
> +
> /* array of size num_crtcs */
> struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank;
>
This seems like the sort of thing it would be good to have a test
for... I'm surprised we haven't hit it yet. But in looking at the code
I don't see where we'd re-enable things properly in this situation, so
I guess it's a real bug.
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
