[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-23 Thread Mario Kleiner
On 23/09/14 15:51, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > >> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first > >> objected, then objected to my objection.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: >> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first >> objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual >> regressions. Attached a trivially

[PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-15 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first > objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual > regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch to go on top > of

[PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-13 Thread Mario Kleiner
The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch to go on top of drm-next, also as tgz in case my e-mail client mangles the patch

[PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-09-04 Thread Mario Kleiner
I thought about this one again and opposed to my previous comment now think it's fine, also for drivers without hw vblank counter queries. -mario On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote: > From: Ville Syrj?l? > > If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't > update it

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-08-06 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:56:14PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:49:57PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com > wrote: > > From: Ville Syrj?l? > > > > If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't > > update it with a new timestmap. Small

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-08-06 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:49:57PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote: > From: Ville Syrj?l? > > If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't > update it with a new timestmap. Small errors can creep in between two > timestamp queries for the same vblank count,

[PATCH 14/19] drm: Don't update vblank timestamp when the counter didn't change

2014-08-06 Thread ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com
From: Ville Syrj?l? If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't update it with a new timestmap. Small errors can creep in between two timestamp queries for the same vblank count, which could be confusing to userspace when it queries the