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

[Dave Stevenson]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 15:42, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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.

Fair enough. I know timing is "entertaining" around some of the 2711
pipeline setup.

Reviewed-by: Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>