On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:40:59PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 16/10/15 17:27, Matt Roper wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:40:02PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>Instead of relying on the old crtc-{x,y,mode} gunk, dig out the primary
> >>plane coordinates from the plane state when checking them against the
> >>new framebuffer during page flip.
> >>
> >>Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
> >>Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >For the series:
> >
> >Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
Pulled all 5 into drm-misc, thanks.
> >I also confirmed that the i-g-t test I wrote here:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-October/077394.html
> >now passes with your patch series, so I believe Tvrtko's original bug
> >report should be fixed.
>
> Oh I did not realize this series is about this, perhaps because I did not
> see 1/5 which maybe had some more obvious clues. :)
>
> Great, that means if we decide to merge "drm/i915: Consider plane rotation
> when calculating stride in skl_do_mmio_flip" and "kms_rotation_crc: Exercise
> page flips with 90 degree rotation" we would have working rotated legacy
> page flip with a test case.
Matt, can you please push these igt patches and double-check that we have
subtests to catch the viewport confusion here?
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
