On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote: > Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled > into one patch? > > Patch 5 is a bit more complicated. > On cards with very little video memory, (e.g 8MB) higher resolutions > at 32bit framebuffer depths will get corrupted because the required > memory is larger than what the framebuffer has. DRM has "max_height" > and "max_width" but no "max_bytes" for limiting resolutions, so the > patch is a little hacky. The first for loop tries to associate a > connector with the mode being tested. From the connector I can get the > bpp if the user specified one on the video= commandline. After that I > do 2 things: > 1) Invalidate the requested mode from the video= parameter > 2) Return MODE_BAD if the framebuffer would be too large > I feel this patch plays with structures it shouldn't have to touch to > get the bpp. An alternative fix would be to include a "max_bytes" in > the DRM core and then do these checks there. > > I'm also wondering, did I miss the 3.9.0 merge window? > > Thanks, > > Christopher Harvey (5): > drm/mgag200: Cleanup: Remove pointless call to drm_fb_get_bpp_depth > drm/mgag200: Cleanup: 'fbdev_list' in 'struct mga_fbdev' is not used > drm/mgag200: Cleanup: Pass driver specific mga_device in driver > functions > drm/mgag200: Cleanup: Remove extra variable assigns > drm/mgag200: Reject modes that are too big for VRAM > > drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_drv.h | 1 - > drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_fb.c | 3 --- > drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c | 2 -- > drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_mode.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.12.4 > Ping. I've got more patches queuing up. Should I re-submit these along with the new ones? So far I've only gotten commit message feedback. -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
