On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 16:10 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Are vblanks | Is anyone |
happening? | listening? | What to do?
YesYes Update MSC based on vblank interrupts
YesNoDisable IRQ, estimate MSC next time
someone listens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 16:10 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Are vblanks | Is anyone |
happening? | listening? | What to do?
YesYes Update MSC based on vblank interrupts
YesNoDisable
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Recall our last discussion where I outlined the cases we'd have to deal
with in the modeset ioctl if we didn't use
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Recall our last discussion where I outlined the cases we'd
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:27 am Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:47 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Btw I don't have a problem with keeping this functionality, but we need to
fix
it (the problem above is the only one I'm aware of atm). That means:
1) removing the last count stuff and providing a disable timer knob
2) changing
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:43 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 10:34 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:43 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:49 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 10:34 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:43 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:42 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Can you think of a case where those frames would matter?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Barnes wrote:
As to your example, I wasn't looking for theoretical issues, but real apps
that would depend on this behavior. I haven't played with many video apps,
so I'm not sure if what you outlined is common behavior, or if apps
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:10 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Stepping back, there are two separate axes (Are vblanks happening? Is
anyone listening?) that give four separate cases. I think we can derive
sensible behavior in all cases. Here is my suggestion:
Are vblanks | Is anyone |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:10 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Stepping back, there are two separate axes (Are vblanks happening? Is
anyone listening?) that give four separate cases. I think we can derive
sensible behavior in all
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:26 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:10 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Stepping back, there are two separate axes (Are vblanks happening? Is
anyone listening?) that give four separate cases. I think we can derive
sensible
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:34 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:26 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:10 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
Stepping back, there are two separate axes (Are vblanks happening? Is
anyone listening?) that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2009 2:33 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:15 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
It does, but take a look at that code again. If
On Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:33 pm Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Recall our last discussion where I outlined the cases we'd have to deal
with in the modeset ioctl if we didn't use get/put to just keep
interrupts on around the calls:
But we
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2009 2:33 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:15 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
It does, but take a look at that code again. If interrupts are disabled
by the timer, we'll capture the frame count.
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:15 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:11 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:29 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
The current wait_vblank condition won't return if the wait sequence is
more than 8M behind the current counter. This
On Friday, February 13, 2009 2:33 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:15 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
It does, but take a look at that code again. If interrupts are disabled
by the timer, we'll capture the frame count. If, sometime later, they're
re-enabled, we'll end up in
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:29 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Michel may want to change this a bit (make the check smaller), but I'd still
like something like this to go in.
Yeah, as I've explained before, if we're changing this, we might as well
go all the way and make it match the 3s timeout as
On Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:11 am Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:29 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Michel may want to change this a bit (make the check smaller), but I'd
still like something like this to go in.
Yeah, as I've explained before, if we're changing this, we might
Michel may want to change this a bit (make the check smaller), but I'd still
like something like this to go in. The current wait_vblank condition won't
return if the wait sequence is more than 8M behind the current counter. This
causes problems in the wraparound case, which can happen if vblank
24 matches
Mail list logo
