1. 07 6月, 2016 6 次提交
  2. 04 6月, 2016 7 次提交
  3. 03 6月, 2016 2 次提交
  4. 02 6月, 2016 22 次提交
  5. 01 6月, 2016 3 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: Revert async unpin and nonblocking atomic commit · e42aeef1
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      This reverts the following patches:
      
      d55dbd06 drm/i915: Allow nonblocking update of pageflips.
      15c86bdb drm/i915: Check for unpin correctness.
      95c2ccdc Reapply "drm/i915: Avoid stalling on pending flips for legacy cursor updates"
      a6747b73 drm/i915: Make unpin async.
      03f476e1 drm/i915: Prepare connectors for nonblocking checks.
      2099deff drm/i915: Pass atomic states to fbc update functions.
      ee7171af drm/i915: Remove reset_counter from intel_crtc.
      2ee004f7 drm/i915: Remove queue_flip pointer.
      b8d2afae drm/i915: Remove use_mmio_flip kernel parameter.
      8dd634d9 drm/i915: Remove cs based page flip support.
      143f73b3 drm/i915: Rework intel_crtc_page_flip to be almost atomic, v3.
      84fc494b drm/i915: Add the exclusive fence to plane_state.
      6885843a drm/i915: Convert flip_work to a list.
      aa420ddd drm/i915: Allow mmio updates on all platforms, v2.
      afee4d87 Revert "drm/i915: Avoid stalling on pending flips for legacy cursor updates"
      
      "drm/i915: Allow nonblocking update of pageflips" should have been
      split up, misses a proper commit message and seems to cause issues in
      the legacy page_flip path as demonstrated by kms_flip.
      
      "drm/i915: Make unpin async" doesn't handle the unthrottled cursor
      updates correctly, leading to an apparent pin count leak. This is
      caught by the WARN_ON in i915_gem_object_do_pin which screams if we
      have more than DRM_I915_GEM_OBJECT_MAX_PIN_COUNT pins.
      
      Unfortuantely we can't just revert these two because this patch series
      came with a built-in bisect breakage in the form of temporarily
      removing the unthrottled cursor update hack for legacy cursor ioctl.
      Therefore there's no other option than to revert the entire pile :(
      
      There's one tiny conflict in intel_drv.h due to other patches, nothing
      serious.
      
      Normally I'd wait a bit longer with doing a maintainer revert, but
      since the minimal set of patches we need to revert (due to the bisect
      breakage) is so big, time is running out fast. And very soon
      (especially after a few attempts at fixing issues) it'll be really
      hard to revert things cleanly.
      
      Lessons learned:
      - Not a good idea to rush the review (done by someone fairly new to
        the area) and not make sure domain experts had a chance to read it.
      
      - Patches should be properly split up. I only looked at the two
        patches that should be reverted in detail, but both look like the
        mix up different things in one patch.
      
      - Patches really should have proper commit messages. Especially when
        doing more than one thing, and especially when touching critical and
        tricky core code.
      
      - Building a patch series and r-b stamping it when it has a built-in
        bisect breakage is not a good idea.
      
      - I also think we need to stop building up technical debt by
        postponing atomic igt testcases even longer. I think it's clear that
        there's enough corner cases in this beast that we really need to
        have the testcases _before_ the next step lands.
      
      (cherry picked from commit 5a21b665
      from drm-intel-next-queeud)
      
      Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
      Cc: Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.jakobsson@linux.intel.com>
      Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
      Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Acked-by: NMaarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
      Acked-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Acked-by: NDave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      Acked-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
      e42aeef1
    • D
      drm/vc4: Use lockless gem BO free callback · b82caafc
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      No dev->struct_mutex anywhere to be seen.
      
      Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
      Reviewed-by: NEric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
      Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1464630800-30786-16-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
      b82caafc
    • D
      drm/vc4: Use drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked · db369729
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      Since my last struct_mutex crusade someone escaped!
      
      This already has the advantage that for the common case when someone
      else holds a ref the unref won't even acquire dev->struct_mutex. And
      I'm working on code to allow drivers to completely opt-out of any and
      all dev->struct_mutex usage, but that only works if they use the
      _unlocked variants everywhere.
      
      v2: Drop comment too.
      
      v3: Drop the other comment too.
      
      Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
      Reviewed-by: NEric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
      Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1464630800-30786-15-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
      db369729