On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:26:19 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:36:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:19:16 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:08:47PM -0300, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at gmail.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov at intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > index 3d78686..5ee652d 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > @@ -2427,7 +2427,7 @@ intel_pipe_set_base(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int x, int y, > > > > case 1: > > > > break; > > > > case 2: > > > > - if (IS_IVYBRIDGE(dev)) > > > > + if (IS_IVYBRIDGE(dev) || IS_HASWELL(dev)) > > > > break; > > > > /* fall through otherwise */ > > > > default: > > > > > > Imo this code is a rather funky way to check for 3 plane support ... I > > > think we should just replace this entire switch statement with a > > > if(WARN_ON(intel_crtc->plane > dev_priv->num_pipes)) return -EINVAL; > > > > > > Or has there been another reason for this? Chris, git blame says you've > > > originally added this in 5c3b82e2, any comments? > > > > Yup, it's just a userspace (and internal consistency) validation check, so > > if (pipe >= dev_priv->num_pipes) return -EINVAL; would have sufficed. > > Hm, how can userspace trigger this? It can only pass in crtc ids, which > the drm core validates. intel_crtc->plane is completely in our control, > hence why I think this can only be a driver bug. Or do I miss something? Shooting the messanger here. :-p Right, userspace cannot assign pipes, that is purely an internal detail. So this can be promoted to a if (WARN(pipe >= num_pipes)) return -EINVAL; or killed outright. All I did in that commit was perform the existing consistency check upfront, and return -EINVAL alongside the DRM_ERROR. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
