Hi,
On 09/12/2015 02:44 AM, Vivek Kasireddy wrote:
From: Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@xxxxxxxxx>
Currently, fb objects with rotated views are ignored while pinning. Therefore,
include the rotated view type and use the view size instead of the object's
size to determine if it is fenceable. And, look at the view and its offset
while writing and pinning to the fence registers.
I didn't figure out from the commit message if something is broken or?
AFAIR rotated views deliberately skip on fencing since rotated view has
shuffled pages in memory so it would be a weird view for userspace to
handle.
Especially this below:
static void i965_write_fence_reg(struct drm_device *dev, int reg,
- struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+ struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
+ const struct i915_ggtt_view *view)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
int fence_reg;
int fence_pitch_shift;
+ const struct i915_ggtt_view *ggtt_view = view;
if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
fence_reg = FENCE_REG_SANDYBRIDGE_0;
@@ -95,9 +97,13 @@ static void i965_write_fence_reg(struct drm_device *dev, int reg,
size = (size / row_size) * row_size;
}
- val = (uint64_t)((i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(obj) + size - 4096) &
- 0xfffff000) << 32;
- val |= i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(obj) & 0xfffff000;
+ if (!ggtt_view)
+ ggtt_view = &i915_ggtt_view_normal;
+
+ val = (uint64_t)((i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset_view((obj), ggtt_view)
+ + size - 4096) & 0xfffff000) << 32;
+ val |= i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset_view((obj), ggtt_view) & 0xfffff000;
+
Looks like the code can be setting up a fence with a rotated view GGTT
address which looks wrong? Is this really what is wanted and why?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
