We do exactly like this for sprite plane (ie, rotate the rect, then check scaling and adjust the size accordingly from drm_rect_calc_hscale_relaxed) That's why I saw the need of this for primary plane as well. For sprite plane 90 rotation, intel_check_sprite_plane does the adjustments and the rotated sizes are fine. But since we don't do any of those stuff for primary the destination size doesn't come right, and I get a little corrupted output after rotation. With this change, the rotated plane is properly adjusted in the viewport. So, I don't think it is a bug in test. -----Original Message----- From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:58 PM To: Jindal, Sonika Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Adding rotation to drm_plane_helper_check_update On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:05:53AM +0530, sonika wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 January 2015 07:02 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 06:03:39PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > >> Taking rotation into account while checking the plane and adjusting > >> the sizes accordingly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >> include/drm/drm_plane_helper.h | 3 +- > >> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c > >> index f24c4cf..4badd69 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c > >> @@ -138,9 +138,13 @@ int drm_plane_helper_check_update(struct drm_plane *plane, > >> int max_scale, > >> bool can_position, > >> bool can_update_disabled, > >> - bool *visible) > >> + bool *visible, > >> + unsigned int rotation) > >> { > >> int hscale, vscale; > >> + int crtc_x, crtc_y; > >> + unsigned int crtc_w, crtc_h; > >> + uint32_t src_x, src_y, src_w, src_h; > >> > >> if (!fb) { > >> *visible = false; > >> @@ -158,9 +162,13 @@ int drm_plane_helper_check_update(struct drm_plane *plane, > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> > >> + if (fb) > >> + drm_rect_rotate(src, fb->width << 16, fb->height << 16, > >> + rotation); > >> + > >> /* Check scaling */ > >> - hscale = drm_rect_calc_hscale(src, dest, min_scale, max_scale); > >> - vscale = drm_rect_calc_vscale(src, dest, min_scale, max_scale); > >> + hscale = drm_rect_calc_hscale_relaxed(src, dest, min_scale, max_scale); > >> + vscale = drm_rect_calc_vscale_relaxed(src, dest, min_scale, > >> +max_scale); > > This is an unrelated change. Relaxed scaling allows the the src/dest > > rectangles to be reduced in size in order to keep the scaling ration > > within the min/max range. I suppose we should switch to using it to > > make the behaviour uniform across drivers, but definitely should be > > done with a separate patch. > Since, I added drm_rect_rotate before this, it changes the src sizes > and it was giving me Invalid scaling if we don't let the sizes to be > changed using _relaxed functions. I am trying this for 90/270 > rotation. That would indicate a bug somewhere. Pontetially the bug could be in whatever test you're using as well. > I can move it to a separate patch if required. We nee to figure out why you got the error first. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
