linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 29/78] drm/vc4: crtc: Add a delay after disabling the PixelValve output

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <ff6eca99-d98e-5b50-8b74-bba82928dda2@i2se.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:50:31 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>
Cc:     Tim Gover <tim.gover@...pberrypi.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 29/78] drm/vc4: crtc: Add a delay after disabling the
 PixelValve output

Hi Maxime,

Am 29.07.20 um 16:42 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 03:09:21PM +0100, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 18:43, Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> wrote:
>>> In order to avoid pixels getting stuck in the (unflushable) FIFO between
>>> the HVS and the PV, we need to add some delay after disabling the PV output
>>> and before disabling the HDMI controller. 20ms seems to be good enough so
>>> let's use that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
>>> index d0b326e1df0a..7b178d67187f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
>>> @@ -403,6 +403,8 @@ static void vc4_crtc_atomic_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>>         ret = wait_for(!(CRTC_READ(PV_V_CONTROL) & PV_VCONTROL_VIDEN), 1);
>>>         WARN_ONCE(ret, "Timeout waiting for !PV_VCONTROL_VIDEN\n");
>>>
>>> +       mdelay(20);
>> mdelay for 20ms seems a touch unfriendly as it's a busy wait. Can we
>> not msleep instead?
> Since the timing was fairly critical, sleeping didn't seem like a good
> solution since there's definitely some chance you overshoot and end up
> with a higher time than the one you targeted.

usleep_range(min, max) isn't a solution?

Stefan

>
> Maxime
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives