On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 04:44:12PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:50:28AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-02-09 09:22:09)
> > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2021-02-09 02:19:16)
> > > > + while ((src_x + src_w) * cpp > plane_state->color_plane[0].stride) {
> > > > + if (offset == 0) {
> > > > + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
> > > > + "Unable to find suitable display surface offset due to X-tiling\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + offset = intel_plane_adjust_aligned_offset(&src_x, &src_y, plane_state, 0,
> > > > + offset, offset - alignment);
> >
> > > The reason for choosing a nearby tile offset was to reduce src_x/src_y
> > > to fit within the crtc limits. While remapping could be used to solve
> > > that, the aligned_offset computation allows reuse of a single view.
> >
> > Should there not be a second constraint on the loop to make sure src_x +
> > src_w is less than 4095/8191/etc?
>
> Yeah, but we don't have that in the skl code either atm.
> Should add it to both.
Actually no. We already cap the max stride such that it never
exceeds that limit. So the single check already covers that.
What I think we should be checking is that src_y stays below the
appropriate limit. Although I'm not sure if we could realistically
hit a case where that fails but still find a suitably aligned
offset before hitting 0. Oh and I've not actually confirmed
whether src_y+src_h also has an upper limit or not.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
