Re: [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915: Add 180 degree primary plane rotation support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Daniel,
Are you taking this patch back in drm-intel?

-Sonika

On 8/7/2014 5:41 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 01:45:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:11:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:10:28PM +0530, sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
+		/* FBC does not work on some platforms for rotated planes */
+			if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen <= 4 && !IS_G4X(dev)) {
+				if (dev_priv->fbc.plane == intel_crtc->plane &&
+				intel_plane->rotation != BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0))
+					intel_disable_fbc(dev);
+			/* If rotation was set earlier and new rotation is 0,
+			we might have disabled fbc earlier. So update it now */
+				else if (intel_plane->rotation == BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)
+					&& old_val != BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)) {
+					mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+					intel_update_fbc(dev);
+					mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+				}
+			}

Indentation is screwed up here. Also if we convert some of the checks into
early bails we could de-indent this by one level.

Also Chris mentioned that on some platforms this won't work and it's more
future-proof to just do a full modeset until we have the proper
infrastructure.

Apparently this review here was never addressed, as Chris just pointed out
on irc. I've dropped the patch again.

I think we need:
- The same sequence as with the sprite set_property function, i.e. we need
   to call the update_plane function (not the raw low-level one, the
   high-level with all the checks).
- The fbc check is wrong and will miss updates when the crtc is off. We
   need to move this into the general list of checks in intel_update_fbc.
- Since this seems to be buggy I want added testcases to combine fbc
   correctness with screen rotation. Probably best to reuse the existing
   fbc testcase and add a bunch or rotated tests.

Ok, the check in update_fbc is there, I've been blind. Sorry about all the
confusion. So just amounts of calling the higher level function and we can
forgo the fbc testing.
-Daniel

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux