On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:32:35PM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 10:41 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:41:18AM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 21:12 -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > > 570e86963a51 ("drm: Widen vblank count to 64-bits [v3]") changed the
> > > > return type for drm_crtc_vblank_count() to u64. This could cause
> > > > potential problems if the return value is used in arithmetic operations
> > > > with a 32-bit reference HW vblank count. Explicitly typecasting this
> > > > down to u32 either fixes a potential problem or serves to add clarity in
> > > > case the implicit typecasting was already correct.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Keith Packard <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >
> > > Thierry,
> > >
> > > Can I get an Ack on this please?
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c
> > > > index b8403ed48285..49df2db2ad46 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c
> > > > @@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ static u32 tegra_dc_get_vblank_counter(struct
> > > > drm_crtc *crtc)
> > > > return host1x_syncpt_read(dc->syncpt);
> > > >
> > > > /* fallback to software emulated VBLANK counter */
> > > > - return drm_crtc_vblank_count(&dc->base);
> > > > + return (u32)drm_crtc_vblank_count(&dc->base);
> >
> > Isn't this the wrong way around? Shouldn't we instead make the
> > ->get_vblank_counter() callback return u64 like drm_crtc_vblank_count()?
>
> Here's how I understand this -
>
> To use the software emulated vblank counter, the driver should set
> max_vblank_count = 0 and the core takes care of calculating elapsed
> vblanks.
>
> ->get_vblank_counter() is meant to return the hardware counter if
> available, which would be a 32-bit value. Hence the explicit typecast to
> 32-bit for the fallback case too.
>
> Having said that, I believe drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count() is the
> appropriate function for fallback.
Hi Thierry,
any further concerns or thoughts here?
I'd like to merge all together on drm-intel since the ones
around us is kind of blocking us.
Thanks,
Rodrigo.
>
> -DK
>
>
>
> >
> > Thierry
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
