On 4/7/2015 1:43 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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?
Oh, yes the check is there. Will abandon that check then and just move
the 90/270 pixel format check to intel_plane_atomic_check.
Regards,
Sonika
Definitely agree that testcases would be nice.
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
