On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM, <j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Aruba and newer gpu does not need the avivo cursor work around,
>>> quite the opposite this work around lead to corruption.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cursor.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cursor.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cursor.c
>>> index ad6df62..30f71cc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cursor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cursor.c
>>> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ int radeon_crtc_cursor_move(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>> y = 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (ASIC_IS_AVIVO(rdev)) {
>>> + if (ASIC_IS_AVIVO(rdev) && (rdev->family < CHIP_ARUBA)) {
>>
>> I believe these issues were fixed on DCE6, but I'm verifying now. SI
>> is dce6 as well so the check here should probably be:
>>
>> if (ASIC_IS_AVIVO(rdev) && !ASIC_IS_DCE6(rdev)) {
>
> Actually, the two patches are identical since:
> #define ASIC_IS_DCE6(rdev) ((rdev->family >= CHIP_ARUBA))
> but I think the DCE6 variant is clearer. Once I verify with the hw
> team I'll add the patch with that change.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alex
>
Yes they are identical, i meant that i considered doing it that way
but i did not have strong feeling. :)
Cheers,
Jerome
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
