On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:22:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:12:27PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:07:41PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 02:24:41PM -0700, Kevin Strasser wrote: [...] > > > > - I915_WRITE(reg, 0); > > > > + I915_WRITE(reg, I915_READ(reg) & ~DISPLAY_PLANE_ENABLE); > > > > > > Eh, what now? We've been trying to eliminate these nasty RMWs. > > > > > > Are you saying that if we disabled the plane, but leave the "pass plane > > > data through gamma" it still affects the output for any pixel "covered" > > > by the disabled plane? > > > > What I thought was being said was that if a plane is set to black (but > > with gamma enabled on the pipe) then a different CRC is produced > > compared to when the pipe is completely disabled (no plane at all). It > > sounded to me like a test case failure. > > In that case I don't understand how the patch is supposed to help. > > But yeah, tests like these should really set up an identity gamma > and pipe csc matrix. > > Also we should grow some properties to control whether the plane > data passes through the gamma/csc or not. Those could then be used > to achieeve the same effect. Just to level set, these cases will produce different CRCs on HSW: 1. Primary plane disabled, gamma correction disabled 2. Primary plane disabled, gamma correction enabled Case 2 is visibly brighter than case 1 and looks more like the enabled black primary plane case. The purpose of this patch is to get the behavior of a disabled primary plane to match that of an enabled black plane, just as it does on non-HSW platforms. Understood, RMWs are inappropriate here. I'll rework the patch to explicitly enable the bits that are needed. Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
