Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/atmel-hlcdc: do not immediately disable planes, wait for next frame

[Peter Rosin]

On 2019-01-10 20:25, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:51:21 +0000
> Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-01-10 18:29, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:10:48 +0000
>>> Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> The A2Q and UPDATE bits have no effect in the channel disable registers.
>>>> However, since they are present, assume that the intention is to disable
>>>> planes, not immediately as indicated by the RST bit, but on the next
>>>> frame shift since that is what A2Q and UPDATE means in the channel enable
>>>> registers.
>>>>
>>>> Disabling the plane on the next frame shift is done with the EN bit,
>>>> so use that.  
>>>
>>> It's been a long time, but I think I had a good reason for forcing a
>>> reset. IIRC, when you don't do that and the CRTC is disabled before the
>>> plane, the EN bit stays around, and next time you queue a plane update,
>>> you'll start with an invalid buf pointer.  
>>
>> It might be possible to clear the EN bit in ...CHDR before enabling the
>> plane in ...CHER. Or is that too late?
> 
> I think I tried that, but I'm not sure (BTW, this change was done in
> bd4248bb5e8b ("drm: atmel-hlcdc: reset layer A2Q and UPDATE bits when

That patch is a big fat NOP if you read the documentation. Those bits
are marked with a '-' for all LCDC channel disable registers, for all
supported chips IIUC. Are the effects of those bits mentioned in any
errata?

It would be good with a comment that the present undocumented disable
method is intentional. That would have kept me from assuming the whole
thing was just copy-paste junk from ..._enable that happened to work.

>> disabling it")). Anyway, I'm not even sure this is still needed now
>> that atomic updates have a wait_for_flip_done/vblank() in the commit
>> path.

The documentation for the RST bit states "Resets the layer immediately.
The frame is aborted." which sounds a bit scary and heavy-handed. But
again, I don't know what that actually means and what the effects are
but that was the reason for me wanting to avoid the RST bit.

Cheers,
Peter

>> But this patch is not overly
>> important, I just wanted to avoid the resulting "black hole" when the
>> plane DMA is disabled mid-frame. But disabling planes is probably not
>> something that happens frequently and will perhaps not be noticed at
>> all...
> 
> Okay. Other patches look good to me, I'm just waiting for Nicolas
> feedback before applying them.
>