Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-08-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:20:49AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:15:08AM -0700, Stuart Abercrombie wrote: > > 90% of core speed (=180MHz dot clock) is too high for 2048x1280 to get > > pixel doubling on Pineview, which it needs to avoid underruns, so > > lower this to 85%.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-08-16 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:15:08AM -0700, Stuart Abercrombie wrote: > 90% of core speed (=180MHz dot clock) is too high for 2048x1280 to get > pixel doubling on Pineview, which it needs to avoid underruns, so > lower this to 85%. > > Signed-off-by: Stuart Abercrombie I've not found any rationale

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-07-25 Thread Stéphane Marchesin
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Stuart Abercrombie > wrote: >> This is with the patch. > > Hm, nothing really interesting bug I've finally gotten around to some > doc reading and they seem to insist pretty hard that double wide mode > on p

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-07-25 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Stuart Abercrombie wrote: > This is with the patch. Hm, nothing really interesting bug I've finally gotten around to some doc reading and they seem to insist pretty hard that double wide mode on pipe A only works if we have pipe A linked up with cursor/plane A. Bu

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-06-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Stuart Abercrombie wrote: > Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see a response to this. Can we get > this fix in? Sorry for the delay, I've lost track of this. Can you please boot with drm.debug=0xe and attach the full dmesg (with or without your patch)? -Dan

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-05-29 Thread Stuart Abercrombie
Without this change I saw PIPE_FIFO_UNDERRUN_STATUS set in PIPEASTAT, which I took to indicate an underrun problem. Here's what I found with other modes on this monitor: 1920x1200 works with pixel doubling enabled. Pixel clock 193.2 MHz. 2048x1152 works with pixel doubling enabled. Pixel clock 19

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-05-29 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:39:07AM -0700, Stuart Abercrombie wrote: > Any comments? > > Without this, plugging one of the older Chromebook models into a Dell U3011 > monitor produces a garbled display at the default 2048x1280 resolution. > > The original threshold was apparently fairly arbitrary:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-05-29 Thread Stuart Abercrombie
Any comments? Without this, plugging one of the older Chromebook models into a Dell U3011 monitor produces a garbled display at the default 2048x1280 resolution. The original threshold was apparently fairly arbitrary: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~anholt/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=8fcf9a81179ee8

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Lower threshold for pixel doubling.

2013-05-20 Thread Stuart Abercrombie
90% of core speed (=180MHz dot clock) is too high for 2048x1280 to get pixel doubling on Pineview, which it needs to avoid underruns, so lower this to 85%. Signed-off-by: Stuart Abercrombie --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff -