On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:23:35PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:07:56PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > index 80a98bffd5ba..33200403a5db 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > @@ -13448,7 +13448,9 @@ intel_commit_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, > > > if (!crtc->state->active) > > > return; > > > > > > - dev_priv->display.update_primary_plane(crtc, fb, crtc->x, crtc->y); > > > + dev_priv->display.update_primary_plane(crtc, fb, > > > + state->src.x1 >> 16, > > > + state->src.y1 >> 16); > > > } > > > > You know I posted a pile of patches last spring to start cleaning up > > this mess. Maybe someone wants to rescue the patches and avoid some > > duplicate work? > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-March/061715.html > > I double-checked that series again and I pulled in the first 3 patches > (which had an r-b), but for patches 4+ there's been some inconclusive > discussion afaict from a quick look. Did I miss a resend somewhere? Nah. I think the patches cleaning up the primary plane junk had an r-b, but I guess those were patches 5-6. But given how bad atomic/plane state was at the time, I'm sure those couldn't have been applied safely w/o patch 4. One might hope things have gotten better since then, but I can't be sure. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
