On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:42:44AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:28:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:59:20PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > If it wasn't never enabled by kernel parameter or platform default
> > > > we can avoid reading registers so many times in vain
> > >
> > > Nak.
> >
> > Well I've merged this for now to reduce fbc impact.
> >
>
> Uhm, unfortunatelly I'm afraid Chris was right.
> Paulo also nacked it. Because it just helps when it was explicitly disabled
> by setting i915.enable_fbc=0 while the default is -1.
>
> I though about returning on <= 0, but Paulo is afraid that when enabling
> back for some platform people would forget to fix this part here and I
> agree.
Well I guess I should have read mails before pushing out a new -next ;-)
So this is now baked in. Should I revert or can we just fix up on top?
No problem, I can fix this on top.
But what do you prefer:
1. <=0 return and changing parameter permission from 600 to 400
2. dev_priv->fbc_enabled
3. or check if fbc_no_reason was ever set? Although I don't like the fbc_no_reason and would like to clean it up in the future. But anyway, any option here is temporary until a proper rework for cleanup and real fix.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
