On 05/06/2015 09:56 PM, Konduru, Chandra wrote:
@@ -1765,14 +1765,6 @@ void igt_plane_set_fb(igt_plane_t *plane, struct igt_fb *fb) plane->fb = fb; /* hack to keep tests working that don't call igt_plane_set_size() */ if (fb) { - plane->crtc_w = fb->width; - plane->crtc_h = fb->height; - } else { - plane->crtc_w = 0; - plane->crtc_h = 0; - } - - if (fb) { /* set default plane pos/size as fb size */ plane->crtc_x = 0; plane->crtc_y = 0; @@ -1784,6 +1776,9 @@ void igt_plane_set_fb(igt_plane_t *plane, struct igt_fb *fb) fb->src_y = 0; fb->src_w = fb->width; fb->src_h = fb->height; + } else { + plane->crtc_w = 0; + plane->crtc_h = 0; }Existing code is simply setting fb src position and plane crtc position to 0s (top left) and src size as fb size and crtc size as plane size to start a fb with a plane. Then individual test can change them to whatever fb position/size and plane position/size as it wants. As I commented to 3/4 patch, if these initializations are removed, then all tests to be updated to explicitly set them.
Not sure what you mean. I simply cleaned two "if (fb)" conditions one after another, into one. No functional changes.
As a side note, is there any reason for having two patches 2/4 and 3/4 modifying same lines of code instead of a single patch?
Because this is just a code cleanup and the other was a functional change. And because it doesn't matter - lets not spend hours going back and forth on trivial IGT fixes.
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
