Hi,
On 03/19/2015 01:02 PM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
static inline
int i915_get_ggtt_vma_pages(struct i915_vma *vma)
Same rant about function signatures as on earlier patch, put all on the
same line like most of new the code has it.
Ok.
struct i915_ggtt_view {
enum i915_ggtt_view_type type;
struct sg_table *pages;
+
+ union {
+ struct intel_rotation_info rotation_info;
+ };
In preparation for the memcmp way of comparing views, I would move this
be before the variable struct parts (namely sg_table *pages), and also
wrap it once more so the result would be like this:
[snip]
enum i915_ggtt_view_type type;
union {
struct {
struct intel_rotation_info info;
} rotated;
struct {
...
} partial;
};
// private bits go here, to be wrapped in their struct with view
// type comparing patches
struct sg_table *pages;
[snip]
That way it's clear which view owns what.
Hm, rotation info is not considered in comparing views, it is just a
bucket of data passed around between layers. So I suppose private data
under your design. Since there is no private union yet, maybe do this later?
extern const struct i915_ggtt_view i915_ggtt_view_normal;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index fe11e99..c2c3a76 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -2194,7 +2194,7 @@ static bool need_vtd_wa(struct drm_device *dev)
return false;
}
-static unsigned int
+unsigned int
intel_tile_height(struct drm_device *dev, uint32_t pixel_format,
uint64_t fb_format_modifier)
{
@@ -2254,9 +2254,34 @@ int intel_fill_fb_ggtt_view(struct i915_ggtt_view *view,
struct drm_framebuffer *fb,
const struct drm_plane_state *plane_state)
{
+ struct intel_rotation_info *info = &view->rotation_info;
+ static const struct i915_ggtt_view rotated_view =
+ { .type = I915_GGTT_VIEW_ROTATED };
+
*view = i915_ggtt_view_normal;
- return 0;
+ if (!plane_state)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!(plane_state->rotation &
+ (BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270))))
+ return 0;
Should the rotation checking helper introduced in previous patch be used
here too?
It's the other way round, following patch adds the helper and replaces
this with a call to it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
