On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:20:39PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > Ah, you're right. I was conflating explicit disables (fb=0) with > > > > implicit disables (clipped to invisible). I think the v7 I just sent > > > > should handle this properly...for the implicit disable case we leave the > > > > fb pinned and pointed to by primary->fb. So when we switch to another > > > > fb (or explicitly disable with fb=0), we should unpin it properly. > > > > > > Do we have proper coverage for this fun in our primary plane helper tests? > > > This is the kind of complexity that freaks me out ;-) > > > -Daniel > > > > Was 'helper' in your question above a typo? The i-g-t tests I've > > written have been intended for use with this patch (i.e., i915-specific > > primary plane support), so I don't really have any tests that only test > > the lesser, helper-provided functionality (and drivers using the helpers > > shouldn't run into the things Ville is pointing out here because they > > can't disable the primary plane independent of the crtc). > > > > But assuming you meant the general i-g-t tests, yeah, I also posted a > > slightly updated version so that it now tries to set multiple fb's while > > the crtc is off. Since crtc=off causes the primary plane to be fully > > clipped and implicitly disabled, it should exercise these cases and > > catch the pin/unpin mistakes that Ville's review caught. > > Yeah, s/helper// ;-) For the tests, do you also have some that use the > implicit fb (i.e. fb = -1) with setcrtc? Just kinda for completeness. > -Daniel Yeah...turn off the crtc, set a few different fb's via setplane, then turn the crtc back on with drmModeSetCrtc(fb = -1) and test that it pops up with the right framebuffer set. Matt -- Matt Roper Graphics Software Engineer IoTG Platform Enabling & Development Intel Corporation (916) 356-2795 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
