lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:06:41 +0200
From:   Ville Syrjälä <>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <>
Cc:     Inki Dae <>,,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <>,,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <>,,
        Kyungmin Park <>,
        Marek Szyprowski <>,
        Daniel Vetter <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/exynos/decon5433: signal vblank only on odd

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:15:16AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 20.01.2017 14:55, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 07:52:24AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> In case of interlace mode irq is generated for odd and even fields, but
> >> vblank should be signaled only for the last emitted field.
> > I'm pretty sure most drivers signal it for both fields. At least i915
> > does.
> The question is which behavior is correct? I have not found any clear
> statement in the documentation, or drm core code.

That's very typical for us unfortunately.

I would say what we should do what i915 does. It allows more flexibility
in how you use the hardware. Eg. then you can actually scan out
interlaced material to an interlaced display and not mess up the fields,
and you can also do 3:2 pulldown type of stuff. Or you can even just
stuff progressive frames down the pipe at field rate.

One problem with interlaced stuff is that we don't have any field
indication in the events, nor do we have a way to flip on a specific
field. I tried to specify the latter for the SETPLANE ioctl way
back when, but it didn't end up being implemented and now we would
need something different for atomic.

> I have guessed that since vblank event is used to signal end of scan-out
> of buffer it should be called after scan-out of whole buffer - in case
> of interlaced mode after scan-out of 2nd field.

Each field has a proper vertical blanking interval, so you'd just end up
totally wasting one of them.

> Maybe my assumption is wrong, in such case this patch should be dropped
> and mixer driver also should be fixed, but before doing that it would be
> good to know for sure how it should be handled correctly.
> Regards
> Andrzej

Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC

Powered by blists - more mailing lists