Op 03-06-15 om 03:28 schreef Matt Roper:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 03:27:10PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Move the check for encoder cloning here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c | 5 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> index 156df1b59ddd..1edd1651c045 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev,
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - /* FIXME: move to crtc atomic check function once it is ready */
>> + /*
>> + * FIXME: move to crtc atomic check function once this is
>> + * more atomic friendly.
>> + */
>> ret = intel_atomic_setup_scalers(dev, nuclear_crtc, crtc_state);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 6f3e96930da5..0060784525dc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -11404,11 +11404,87 @@ out_hang:
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static bool encoders_cloneable(const struct intel_encoder *a,
>> + const struct intel_encoder *b)
>> +{
>> + /* masks could be asymmetric, so check both ways */
>> + return a == b || (a->cloneable & (1 << b->type) &&
>> + b->cloneable & (1 << a->type));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool check_single_encoder_cloning(struct drm_atomic_state *state,
>> + struct intel_crtc *crtc,
>> + struct intel_encoder *encoder)
>> +{
>> + struct intel_encoder *source_encoder;
>> + struct drm_connector *connector;
>> + struct drm_connector_state *connector_state;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_connector_in_state(state, connector, connector_state, i) {
>> + if (connector_state->crtc != &crtc->base)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + source_encoder =
>> + to_intel_encoder(connector_state->best_encoder);
>> + if (!encoders_cloneable(encoder, source_encoder))
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool check_encoder_cloning(struct drm_atomic_state *state,
>> + struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> +{
>> + struct intel_encoder *encoder;
>> + struct drm_connector *connector;
>> + struct drm_connector_state *connector_state;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_connector_in_state(state, connector, connector_state, i) {
>> + if (connector_state->crtc != &crtc->base)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + encoder = to_intel_encoder(connector_state->best_encoder);
>> + if (!check_single_encoder_cloning(state, crtc, encoder))
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int intel_atomic_check_crtc(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>> + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> The plane equivalent is 'intel_plane_atomic_check'...it would be nice if
> we could keep the naming consistent (intel_crtc_atomic_check).
>
> Not sure if this should go in intel_display.c or intel_atomic.c. Maybe
> a future patch can shuffle a bunch of stuff around so things are a bit
> more consistent than they are today.
That's my intention. But for now keeping everything in 1 place is a lot easier. After it's hooked up as
atomic_check/atomic_commit I can move it to intel_atomic.c, but for now maintaining such a patch
would be busywork since it would break down every time I make an adjustment.
>
>> +{
>> + struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
>> + struct drm_atomic_state *state = crtc_state->state;
>> + int idx = crtc->base.id;
>> + bool is_crtc_enabled = crtc_state->active;
>> + bool was_crtc_enabled = crtc->state->active;
>> + bool mode_changed = needs_modeset(crtc_state);
>> +
>> + if (mode_changed && !check_encoder_cloning(state, intel_crtc)) {
>> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("rejecting invalid cloning configuration\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + I915_STATE_WARN(crtc->state->active != intel_crtc->active,
>> + "[CRTC:%i] mismatch between state->active(%i) and crtc->active(%i)\n",
>> + idx, crtc->state->active, intel_crtc->active);
>> +
>> + DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("Crtc %i was enabled %i now enabled: %i\n",
>> + idx, was_crtc_enabled, is_crtc_enabled);
> Maybe just print this debug message when the values aren't equal (i.e.,
> an actual change) to cut down on a little spam when it isn't
> interesting?
I think it's not interesting to keep this message any more. I'll remove it.
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
