On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:33:27 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, that's what I do below... I even added it to the changelog: > > http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/27223/ > > > > Did you miss the later hunk in intel_display.c? > > > > What we try to do here is enable swizzling if possible, which we can do > > if no inherited fbs are tiled. > > > > So I think I've done exactly what you repeated above, and documented > > it. So you're going to need to repeat it with different words so I can > > understand, if I'm still missing something. > > In swizzle_detect: > > ... > > if (GEN6+) { > if (preserve_bios_swizzle) { > if (I915_READ(DISP_ARB_CTL) & DISP_TILE_SURFACE_SWIZZLING) { > swizzle_x = I915_BIT_6_SWIZZLE_9_10; > ... > } else { > swizzle_x = I915_BIT_6_SWIZZLE_NONE; > ... > } > } else { > /* existing/old logic to decide about swizzling */ > } > } > > ... > > Plus no shortcut in i915_gem_init_swizzling. Personally I'd also just use > a small helper function to compute preserve_bios_swizzle instead of > storing it in dev_priv (since we will only use it at exactly one place), > but that's a pure style preference. Doesn't this amount to the same thing? I.e. we enable it if possible, otherwise just report it as unswizzled? So you're just wanting a style change here? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
