On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:18:28PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:35:07AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 04:00:04PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Add a function to check whether there is at least one plane that > > > > supports a specific format and modifier combination. Drivers can > > > > use this to reject unsupported formats/modifiers in .fb_create(). > > > > > > > > v2: Accept anyformat if the driver doesn't do planes (Eric) > > > > s/planes_have_format/any_plane_has_format/ (Eric) > > > > Check the modifier as well since we already have a function > > > > that does both > > > > v3: Don't do the check in the core since we may not know the > > > > modifier yet, instead export the function and let drivers > > > > call it themselves > > > > > > > > Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I don't particularly see the point in having FB creation duplicate the > > > validation that atomic check will eventually do, and it means that FB > > > creation cost scales with plane count, but if i915's going to do this, > > > it seems reasonable for them. > > > > atomic_check checks for a given plane only, I do think it makes sense to > > make sure you can't create framebuffers that are impossible to use on a > > given driver at addfb time. > > > > In case the overhead is ever critical, we could compile a static map of > > this at driver load time, and then check that. > > > > Aside: Shouldn't we make this the default for atomic drivers? With > > atomic drivers we can assume that all planes have valid format lists > > (because atomic_check checks them already). Only with non-atomic drivers, > > how might have a faked primary plane is this not a valid assumption ... > > The problem of making this automagic for everyone was the > legacy tiling->modifier thing. > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/210193/ + > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/208070/ > is the best I could really come up with when I tried to make this > entirely automagic. I haven't bothered to revisit those because I > wasn't entirely happy with needing the extra vfunc, and people > didn't seem too excited about this idea. Hm yeah for full format+modifier checking we need a hook. For format-only checking we can get by with requiring atomic only I think. Anyway, kinda orthogonal to all this. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
