On Thursday 19 March 2015 04:59 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
fit into the mappable region, we are better off just trying to fit it
anywhere and hoping for the best. (Any userspace that is cappable of
using ginormous scanouts is also likely not to rely on pure GTT
updates.) In the future, there may even be a kernel mediated method for
the legacy clients.
v2: Skip fence pinning when not mappable.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Satyanantha, Rama Gopal M <rama.gopal.m.satyanantha@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 7 ++++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 9e498e0bbf22..9a1de848e450 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -4034,10 +4034,15 @@ i915_gem_object_pin_to_display_plane(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
/* As the user may map the buffer once pinned in the display plane
* (e.g. libkms for the bootup splash), we have to ensure that we
- * always use map_and_fenceable for all scanout buffers.
+ * always use map_and_fenceable for all scanout buffers. However,
+ * it may simply be too big to fit into mappable, in which case
+ * put it anyway and hope that userspace can cope (but always first
+ * try to preserve the existing ABI).
*/
ret = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(obj, alignment, PIN_MAPPABLE);
if (ret)
+ ret = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(obj, alignment, 0);
+ if (ret)
goto err_unpin_display;
i915_gem_object_flush_cpu_write_domain(obj);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index d621ebecd33e..628aace63b43 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -2308,16 +2308,18 @@ intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj(struct drm_plane *plane,
if (ret)
goto err_interruptible;
- /* Install a fence for tiled scan-out. Pre-i965 always needs a
- * fence, whereas 965+ only requires a fence if using
- * framebuffer compression. For simplicity, we always install
- * a fence as the cost is not that onerous.
- */
- ret = i915_gem_object_get_fence(obj);
- if (ret)
- goto err_unpin;
+ if (obj->map_and_fenceable) {
+ /* Install a fence for tiled scan-out. Pre-i965 always needs a
+ * fence, whereas 965+ only requires a fence if using
+ * framebuffer compression. For simplicity, we always, when
+ * possible, install a fence as the cost is not that onerous.
+ */
+ ret = i915_gem_object_get_fence(obj);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_unpin;
- i915_gem_object_pin_fence(obj);
+ i915_gem_object_pin_fence(obj);
+ }
dev_priv->mm.interruptible = true;
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
@@ -2335,7 +2337,8 @@ static void intel_unpin_fb_obj(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
{
WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&obj->base.dev->struct_mutex));
- i915_gem_object_unpin_fence(obj);
+ if (obj->map_and_fenceable)
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_fence(obj);
i915_gem_object_unpin_from_display_plane(obj);
}
should we skip put_fence in overlay_do_put_image ?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
