| Message ID | 1462297700-17491-1-git-send-email-robert.foss@collabora.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
robert.foss@collabora.com writes: > From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> > > As per the documentation in drm_crtc.h, atomic_commit should return > -EBUSY if an asycnhronous update is requested and there is an earlier > update pending. > > Note: docs cited here are drm_crtc.h, and the whole quote is: > > * - -EBUSY, if an asynchronous updated is requested and there is > * an earlier updated pending. Drivers are allowed to support a queue > * of outstanding updates, but currently no driver supports that. > * Note that drivers must wait for preceding updates to complete if a > * synchronous update is requested, they are not allowed to fail the > * commit in that case. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> This looks good to me. Let's give it a few days on the list for any other KMS folks to catch anything.
On 2016-05-03 03:22 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > robert.foss@collabora.com writes: > >> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> >> >> As per the documentation in drm_crtc.h, atomic_commit should return >> -EBUSY if an asycnhronous update is requested and there is an earlier >> update pending. >> >> Note: docs cited here are drm_crtc.h, and the whole quote is: >> >> * - -EBUSY, if an asynchronous updated is requested and there is >> * an earlier updated pending. Drivers are allowed to support a queue >> * of outstanding updates, but currently no driver supports that. >> * Note that drivers must wait for preceding updates to complete if a >> * synchronous update is requested, they are not allowed to fail the >> * commit in that case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> > > This looks good to me. Let's give it a few days on the list for any > other KMS folks to catch anything. > I haven't seen any further feedback regarding this patch. Does anyone have objections to it being merged?
Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> writes: > On 2016-05-03 03:22 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> robert.foss@collabora.com writes: >> >>> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> >>> >>> As per the documentation in drm_crtc.h, atomic_commit should return >>> -EBUSY if an asycnhronous update is requested and there is an earlier >>> update pending. >>> >>> Note: docs cited here are drm_crtc.h, and the whole quote is: >>> >>> * - -EBUSY, if an asynchronous updated is requested and there is >>> * an earlier updated pending. Drivers are allowed to support a queue >>> * of outstanding updates, but currently no driver supports that. >>> * Note that drivers must wait for preceding updates to complete if a >>> * synchronous update is requested, they are not allowed to fail the >>> * commit in that case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> >> >> This looks good to me. Let's give it a few days on the list for any >> other KMS folks to catch anything. >> > > I haven't seen any further feedback regarding this patch. > Does anyone have objections to it being merged? I merged it to drm-vc4-next last night, actually :)
Thanks Eric! On 2016-05-10 01:06 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> writes: > >> On 2016-05-03 03:22 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>> robert.foss@collabora.com writes: >>> >>>> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> >>>> >>>> As per the documentation in drm_crtc.h, atomic_commit should return >>>> -EBUSY if an asycnhronous update is requested and there is an earlier >>>> update pending. >>>> >>>> Note: docs cited here are drm_crtc.h, and the whole quote is: >>>> >>>> * - -EBUSY, if an asynchronous updated is requested and there is >>>> * an earlier updated pending. Drivers are allowed to support a queue >>>> * of outstanding updates, but currently no driver supports that. >>>> * Note that drivers must wait for preceding updates to complete if a >>>> * synchronous update is requested, they are not allowed to fail the >>>> * commit in that case. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> >>> >>> This looks good to me. Let's give it a few days on the list for any >>> other KMS folks to catch anything. >>> >> >> I haven't seen any further feedback regarding this patch. >> Does anyone have objections to it being merged? > > I merged it to drm-vc4-next last night, actually :) >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c index 4718ae5..7c7188d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c @@ -117,10 +117,18 @@ static int vc4_atomic_commit(struct drm_device *dev, return -ENOMEM; /* Make sure that any outstanding modesets have finished. */ - ret = down_interruptible(&vc4->async_modeset); - if (ret) { - kfree(c); - return ret; + if (async) { + ret = down_trylock(&vc4->async_modeset); + if (ret) { + kfree(c); + return -EBUSY; + } + } else { + ret = down_interruptible(&vc4->async_modeset); + if (ret) { + kfree(c); + return ret; + } } ret = drm_atomic_helper_prepare_planes(dev, state);