On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:07:21PM +0530, Kamble, Sagar A wrote:
>
>
> On 9/23/2015 1:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:46:24PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >>2015-09-14 14:16 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:35:42PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> >>>>Shared frontbuffer bits are causing warnings when same FB is displayed
> >>>>in another plane without clearing the bits from previous plane.
> >>>>
> >>>>v2: Removing coversion of fb bits to 64 bit as it is not needed for now. (Daniel)
> >>>>
> >>>>Change-Id: Ic2df80747f314b82afd22f8326297c57d1e652c6
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Kumar, Mahesh <mahesh1.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 17 ++++++++++-------
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>>index 16e604e..892aa78 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>>@@ -2014,25 +2014,28 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops {
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * Frontbuffer tracking bits. Set in obj->frontbuffer_bits while a gem bo is
> >>>>- * considered to be the frontbuffer for the given plane interface-vise. This
> >>>>+ * considered to be the frontbuffer for the given plane interface-wise. This
> >>>> * doesn't mean that the hw necessarily already scans it out, but that any
> >>>> * rendering (by the cpu or gpu) will land in the frontbuffer eventually.
> >>>> *
> >>>> * We have one bit per pipe and per scanout plane type.
> >>>> */
> >>>>-#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE 4
> >>>>+#define INTEL_MAX_SPRITE_BITS_PER_PIPE 5
> >>>>+#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE 8
> >>>> #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS \
> >>>> (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * I915_MAX_PIPES)
> >>>> #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_PRIMARY(pipe) \
> >>>> (1 << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
> >>>> #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_CURSOR(pipe) \
> >>>>- (1 << (1 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>>-#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE(pipe) \
> >>>>- (1 << (2 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>>+ (1 << (1 + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>>+#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE(pipe, plane) \
> >>>>+ (1 << (2 + plane + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>> #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_OVERLAY(pipe) \
> >>>>- (1 << (3 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>>+ (1 << (2 + INTEL_MAX_SPRITE_BITS_PER_PIPE + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
> >>>> #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_ALL_MASK(pipe) \
> >>>>- (0xf << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
> >>>>+ (0xff << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
> >>>>+#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE_MASK(pipe) \
> >>>>+ (0x7C << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
> >>>Patch was a bit confusing to read since tons of spurious whitespace
> >>>change. Anyway looks good once applied except for
> >>>INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE_MASK which is unused and hence I removed it
> >>>again.
> >>>
> >>>Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
> >>Maybe we could have an IGT test for this...
> >Excellent point. Sagar, can you please supply the missing igt for this
> >issue?
> Yes. Will start preparing.
Thanks. Should be fairly simple to pull off, we simply need a platform
with 2 non-primary/overlay planes and set up the same fb for both. So
hopefully just a few lines of testcase.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
