Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:36:54AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Hi Ville, >> >> On 4 September 2017 at 17:37, Ville Syrjälä >> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:52:15PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: >> >> With this patch the new testcase igt@kms_ccs@pipe-X-invalid-ccs-offset >> >> succeeds. >> > >> > I don't think we actually want to reject overlap. I had a patch for that >> > years ago, but I decided to drop it because people might want to >> > interleave the planes in some interesting ways. Making the overlap >> > check accurate enough to allow that would be to total overkill. So IMO >> > it's perfectly fine to let the user shoot himself in the foot if they >> > mess up the offsets. >> >> Is that actually supported by any hardware renderer? If not, maybe the >> check should only be enabled for generations who support it. > > Not sure I understand the question. You can program your offsets/strides > any which way you want, Hi Ville, Sorry for the delay. Reviewing documentation at [1] I see the following, in page 177, regarding CCS structure: "The CCS is always placed after the main surface and is 4K page aligned". Sorry if I am missing something, but I believe this indicates we can reject any overlapping between the main buffer and CCS. Can you explain why not? [1] https://01.org/sites/default/files/documentation/intel-gfx-prm-osrc-kbl-vol12-display.pdf -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
