[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers > wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at > > > canonical.com wrote: > > > >

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:46:30 -0700 Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000 > Christopher James Halse Rogers > wrote: > > Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the > > vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and > > there doesn't

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000 Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the > vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and > there doesn't appear to be a generic interface to grab this number; > Intel uses

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:32:36 +0200 Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com > wrote: > > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > canonical.com> > > > > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the > > vblank event

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:10:57 +1000 christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com wrote: > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers canonical.com> > > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the > vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling > vblanks there's no

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From:

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:10:57 +1000 christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:32:36 +0200 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000 Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and there doesn't appear to be a generic interface

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:46:30 -0700 Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000 Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the vblank code indexes crtcs based

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers > wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at > > > canonical.com wrote: > > > >

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com > wrote: > > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > canonical.com> > > > > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the > > vblank event before

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

From: Christopher James Halse Rogers This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling vblanks there's no guarantee that it will *ever* happen otherwise. This prevents GL

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at > > canonical.com wrote: > > > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > > canonical.com> > > > > >

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com wrote: > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers canonical.com> > > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the > vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling > vblanks there's no

[PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

From: Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling vblanks there's no guarantee that it will *ever* happen otherwise. This prevents GL

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: Christopher James Halse Rogers christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the vblank

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: Christopher James Halse Rogers

Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Send pending vblank events before disabling vblank.

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote: From: