On 8/4/2014 5:24 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
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.
Ok, I will move it back to plane_create function.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
