On 14/04/14 13:18, Archit Taneja wrote: > On Monday 14 April 2014 02:55 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 11/04/14 10:23, Archit Taneja wrote: >>> The drm ioctl DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB2 doesn't let us allocate buffers >>> which are >>> greater than what is specified in the driver through dev->mode_config. >>> >>> Create helpers for DISPC which return the max manager width and >>> height supported >>> by the device. The maximum width for a framebuffer is set to the >>> combined width >>> of the all the crtcs, assuming they are arranged horizontally. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <archit@xxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.c | 10 ++++++---- >>> drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> include/video/omapdss.h | 2 ++ >>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.c >>> index c8270e4..55ec575 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.c >>> @@ -306,11 +306,13 @@ static int omap_modeset_init(struct drm_device >>> *dev) >>> dev->mode_config.min_width = 32; >>> dev->mode_config.min_height = 32; >>> >>> - /* note: eventually will need some cpu_is_omapXYZ() type stuff here >>> - * to fill in these limits properly on different OMAP generations.. >>> + /* >>> + * Note: the maximum width is set to the combined width of all the >>> + * crtcs. We could assume the same for the maximum height too, but >>> + * we generally don't use such a configuration. >>> */ >>> - dev->mode_config.max_width = 2048; >>> - dev->mode_config.max_height = 2048; >>> + dev->mode_config.max_width = num_crtcs * dispc_mgr_max_width(); >>> + dev->mode_config.max_height = dispc_mgr_max_height(); >> >> This looks very strange. >> >> If the max size is supposed to be the maximum output size we support, >> then multiplying with num_crtcs doesn't make sense. >> >> If, on the other hand, it tells the possible maximum size of the >> framebuffer in the memory, of which only small part is shown (where's >> the max size of that "part" defined, then?), then there should be no >> limits as the only limit is the size of the memory. > > These parameters are used to tell the max size of framebuffer we can > allocate in memory. > > I'm not sure why there is a limit in the first place, but if we have a > really low minimum(like 2048 pixels right now), we can't have multiple > displays showing different regions of the same buffer. In that case shouldn't the limit be 0 (if that's allowed) or some surely high enough value, say, 32767. Why calculate it at all based on the dispc's maximum, if it has no relevance? Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
