2014/1/17 Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:17:42PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com> >> >> The eDP code records a few timestamps containing the last time we took >> some actions, because we need to wait before doing some other actions. >> The problem is that if we store a timestamp when suspending and then >> look at it when resuming, we'll ignore the unknown amount of time we >> actually were suspended. >> >> This happens with the panel power cycle delay: it's 500ms on my >> machine, and it's delaying the resume sequence by 200ms due to a >> timestamp we recorded before suspending. This patch should solve this >> problem by resetting the timestamps. > > But you don't explain why this is safe. The code nerfs the timeouts so > that they are ignored, yet the delays are independent. Should this be > based on realtime rather than jiffies?
I'm not sure I understand your question. What's the problem you see exactly? Thanks, Paulo > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
