Op 30-08-18 om 16:24 schreef Stanislav Lisovskiy:
> PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_AYUV is already supported, according to hardware
> specification.
>
> v2: Edited commit message, removed redundant whitespaces.
>
> v3: Fixed fallthrough logic for the format switch cases.
>
> v4: Yet again fixed fallthrough logic, to reuse code from other case
> labels.
>
> v5: Started to use XYUV instead of AYUV, as we don't use alpha.
>
> v6: Removed unneeded initializer for new XYUV format.
>
> v7: Added scaling support for DRM_FORMAT_XYUV
>
> v8: Edited commit message to be more clear about skl+, renamed
> PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_AYUV to PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XYUV as this format
> doesn't support per-pixel alpha. Fixed minor code issues.
>
> v9: Moved DRM format check to proper place in intel_framebuffer_init.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> index 8534f88a60f6..e0c8480aaa02 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> @@ -6499,7 +6499,7 @@ enum {
> #define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_2101010 (2 << 24)
> #define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_8888 (4 << 24)
> #define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_16161616F (6 << 24)
> -#define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_AYUV (8 << 24)
> +#define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XYUV (8 << 24)
> #define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_INDEXED (12 << 24)
> #define PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_RGB_565 (14 << 24)
> #define ICL_PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_MASK (0x1f << 23)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 30fdfd1a3037..9323708db71f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ static const uint32_t skl_primary_formats[] = {
> DRM_FORMAT_YVYU,
> DRM_FORMAT_UYVY,
> DRM_FORMAT_VYUY,
> + DRM_FORMAT_XYUV,
> };
>
> static const uint32_t skl_pri_planar_formats[] = {
> @@ -101,6 +102,7 @@ static const uint32_t skl_pri_planar_formats[] = {
> DRM_FORMAT_YVYU,
> DRM_FORMAT_UYVY,
> DRM_FORMAT_VYUY,
> + DRM_FORMAT_XYUV,
> DRM_FORMAT_NV12,
> };
>
> @@ -2672,6 +2674,8 @@ int skl_format_to_fourcc(int format, bool rgb_order, bool alpha)
> return DRM_FORMAT_RGB565;
> case PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_NV12:
> return DRM_FORMAT_NV12;
> + case PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XYUV:
> + return DRM_FORMAT_XYUV;
> default:
> case PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_8888:
> if (rgb_order) {
> @@ -3501,6 +3505,8 @@ static u32 skl_plane_ctl_format(uint32_t pixel_format)
> return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_2101010;
> case DRM_FORMAT_XBGR2101010:
> return PLANE_CTL_ORDER_RGBX | PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XRGB_2101010;
> + case DRM_FORMAT_XYUV:
> + return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_XYUV;
> case DRM_FORMAT_YUYV:
> return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 | PLANE_CTL_YUV422_YUYV;
> case DRM_FORMAT_YVYU:
> @@ -4959,6 +4965,7 @@ static int skl_update_scaler_plane(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> case DRM_FORMAT_UYVY:
> case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY:
> case DRM_FORMAT_NV12:
> + case DRM_FORMAT_XYUV:
> break;
> default:
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[PLANE:%d:%s] FB:%d unsupported scaling format 0x%x\n",
> @@ -13414,6 +13421,7 @@ static bool skl_plane_format_mod_supported(struct drm_plane *_plane,
> case DRM_FORMAT_UYVY:
> case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY:
> case DRM_FORMAT_NV12:
> + case DRM_FORMAT_XYUV:
> if (modifier == I915_FORMAT_MOD_Yf_TILED)
> return true;
> /* fall through */
> @@ -14540,6 +14548,13 @@ static int intel_framebuffer_init(struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fb,
> goto err;
> }
> break;
> + case DRM_FORMAT_XYUV:
> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 9) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("unsupported pixel format: %s\n",
> + drm_get_format_name(mode_cmd->pixel_format, &format_name));
> + goto err;
> + }
> + break;
This hunk isn't needed. DRM core rejects any formats not in the format arrays.
Can you add another patch to audit the framebuffer formats in intel_framebuffer_init and remove the errors we can no longer hit?
It should be all of them, but might mean we have to add a few more format arrays. It will probably be more readable to split it off
to its own function that returns the array and its size.
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
