On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:53:44PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 09:36 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:27AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:43:40PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 10:54 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > > This will allow manual tests when crc isn't available. > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Remove unused and non-sense buf->size and decrease buf->stride a bit as suggested by Daniel. > > > > > > > > > > buf->size isn't nonsense really, it does seem to match what we've > > > > > allocated. But it also seems unused in the rendercpy functions I've > > > > > checked. Imo you should keep that line > > > > > > > > oh sure, bad phrase.... the value 4 was nonsense. > > > > But if I increases that it fails. Without setting it works. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > If just keeping that line makes the test work there's something _really_ > > > fishy going on. If it persists after git clean -dfx and full recompile I'd > > > dig into it, since this really doesn't make sense. > > But what are the values of size and stride you believe it should work in > a actual visible way? Size should obviously match the size of the bo allocated, and stride should be whatever you need, but necessarily must be smaller than the buffer to make sense. I didn't read the test too closely and don't have an edp psr machine at hand to try out what would really be needed here. Ben has played around a lot with the rendercpy stuff, probably best to ask him for a small favour and look into this a bit ;-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
