On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:49:13PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:15:22PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä 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 Syrjälä 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 Syrjälä 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 Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > > > > > > > So basically we see this warning only in case of bigjoiner > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > drm_atomic_check gets called without setting the > > > > > > > > > state->allow_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_bigjoiner() 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==false which > > > > > > > > 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 = 0x1 since it requests > > > > > > > modeset on CRTC 0 > > > > > > > Now in teh atomic check, it steals the slave CRTC 1 and hence > > > > > > > affected CRTC comes out > > > > > > > as 0x3 and hence the mismatch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm. How can it be 0x3 if we filtered out the uapi.enable==false > > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes if I add that condition like in this patch then it correctly > > > > > calculates > > > > > the affected crtc bitmask as only 0x1 since it doesnt include the > > > > > slave crtc. > > > > > So with this patch, requested crtc = 0x 1, affected crtc = 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 |= drm_crtc_mask(crtc); > > > > > > Are you suggesting adding this to after: > > > if (config->funcs->atomic_check) { > > > ret = config->funcs->atomic_check(state->dev, state); > > > > > > if (ret) { > > > DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("atomic driver check for %p > > > failed: %d\n", > > > state, ret); > > > return ret; > > > } > > > requested_crtc |= drm_crtc_mask(crtc); // Here it will have > > > requested crtc = 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 affected > > > 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 = CRTC 0 = 0x2 > After I added the check in this patch where affected crtc will include only > the crtcs that have uapi.enable = true > then it perfectly matches the requested crtc and return 0x2 but without this > check when the calculation of > requested and affected crtc is the same is where we see the affected crtc = > CRTC 0 and 1 = 0x3 > > So when the calculation is different infcat we dont see the mismatch > > What is your point here?
Try doing an atomic commit wiht both crtcs already added in by userspace. I think that will still WARN. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel