On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:59:23PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > On 7/31/2014 9:39 AM, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > > > > On 7/29/2014 4:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:40:29PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:47:22PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 06:29:41PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:43:37PM +0530, sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 3 ++- > >>>>>> include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 1 + > >>>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > >>>>>> index 787631e..49c0747 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > >>>>>> @@ -1299,7 +1299,8 @@ static int drm_mode_create_standard_plane_properties(struct drm_device *dev) > >>>>>> "type", drm_plane_type_enum_list, > >>>>>> ARRAY_SIZE(drm_plane_type_enum_list)); > >>>>>> dev->mode_config.plane_type_property = type; > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> + dev->mode_config.rotation_property = drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > >>>>>> + BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > >>>>> > >>>>> This might not make sense for other (!i915) hardware. And that's the > >>>>> reason why I had the driver create the property in the first place. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think Daniel was thinking that we might want to expose all the bits > >>>>> regardless of what the hardware supports, but I don't like that idea. > >>>>> There are other properties (eg. alpha blending, csc stuff, etc.) that > >>>>> have the same problem of hardware supporting only a (potentially small) > >>>>> subset of the possible values. I'd rather we didn't make life harder > >>>>> for userspace when the kernel can already report that certain values > >>>>> will never work. > >>>> > >>>> Well I'd like the property to be in some generic place so that fbcon can > >>>> unroate and that with the atomic stuff we can have rotation support in the > >>>> core structures. Which should help with argument checking. > >>>> > >>>> But for rotation I don't think we should set it up in generic code, but in > >>>> i915. So the place where we keep it would be generic, the values would be > >>>> the sames, but the allowed set would differ depending upon platform or > >>>> driver. > >>> > >>> That would still fail if all the planes on the same device don't support > >>> the same rotation flags. Eg. on i915 we would have this problem if we > >>> exposed the old video overlay as a drm plane. And it wouldn't be the > >>> first piece of hardware where I've seen this kind of thing. > >> > >> Problem is still that I'd like to have a somewhat generic internal > >> representation available. We could punt this to atomic though by adding a > >> rotation field to the drm_plane_state structure. Which is more-or-less my > >> plan, but wouldn't work with Rob's approach. > >> > >> Or we keep the property link only in drm_plane (and give drivers the > >> freedom to set up the underlying enum however they want to), but I'm not > >> sure whether our interfaces can cope with that. > >> -Daniel > >> > > Daniel, Ville > > > > So what is the suggestion for this property? Should I be moving it to > > somewhere else? > > > > -Sonika > Hi Daniel/Ville, > > Please let me know if I need to move this property somewhere else. Well we at least need to move the crationg of the property to the driver. I guess we could leave the property itself in place in mode_config so that fbdev can get at it easily. If we come across a real need for separate per-plane rotation properties we can always move it to drm_plane later. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
