On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 08:59:33AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:24:02AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > I am not sure how it will help. drm_plane_check_pixel_format should > > be used to check the pixel format of the fb which we should be doing > > in some -check functions (I don't think we do that right now?) > > against what is supported by the plane. > > But to check for the formats which are allowed for 90/270, we would > > need this kind of explicit check. > > Right, I guess there are two aspects here. First, we need to properly > test for acceptable pixel formats for the plane in general; at the > moment the DRM core setplane() tests this, but if we use the atomic > ioctl it never gets checked (which is a bug). So as you say, we need a > test in a _check() function to verify this. We probably also need to > add an i-g-t test for it too. The core atomic ioctl does check for valid plane pixel formats for you. And there shouldn't be any other entrypoint (except internal ones, but that's ok). Is there a bug left? Definitely agree that testcases would be nice. -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
