Hi Liviu, W dniu 16.12.2019 o 18:19, Liviu Dudau pisze:
Hi Andrzej, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:58:36PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:Extend the size-checking special function to handle afbc. Signed-off-by: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c | 10 +++- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c | 3 + drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_framebuffer_helper.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++-- include/drm/drm_gem_framebuffer_helper.h | 16 ++++++ 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c index d14dd7c86020..9ac2175c5bee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c @@ -323,8 +323,14 @@ drm_get_format_info(struct drm_device *dev, { const struct drm_format_info *info = NULL;- if (dev->mode_config.funcs->get_format_info)- info = dev->mode_config.funcs->get_format_info(mode_cmd); + /* bypass driver callback if afbc */ + if (!drm_is_afbc(mode_cmd->modifier[0])) + if (dev->mode_config.funcs->get_format_info) { + const struct drm_mode_config_funcs *funcs; + + funcs = dev->mode_config.funcs; + info = funcs->get_format_info(mode_cmd); + }What has this change to do with the rest of the patch? Also, I think this goes against the idea that an AFBC-aware driver might return better data about the format info than the drm_format_info() code.
The reason is the conclusion of my talk with danvet on irc: https://people.freedesktop.org/~cbrill/dri-log/?channel=dri-devel&highlight_names=&date=2019-11-13&show_html=true I followed his advice - if I understood him correctly, that is.
As a bikeshed, I know it is useful for debugging to turn the oneliner into 3, but it feels like not necessary here.
80 chars per line. If kept in one line, the limit is exceeded with an additional indentation level present. Regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
