Em Ter, 2015-10-20 às 16:52 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:49:50AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > We're going to kill intel_fbc_find_crtc(), that's why a big part of
> > the logic moved from intel_fbc_find_crtc() to crtc_is_valid().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > index b9cfd16..1162787 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > @@ -538,27 +538,33 @@ static void set_no_fbc_reason(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling FBC: %s\n", reason);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool crtc_is_valid(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = crtc->base.dev-
> > >dev_private;
> > + enum pipe pipe = crtc->pipe;
> > +
> > + if ((IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >=
> > 8) &&
> > + pipe != PIPE_A)
>
> Keeping
>
> if (pipe_a_only(dev_priv) && pipe != PIPE_A)
> return false;
>
> would have been nicer.
I can do that on v2.
>
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return intel_crtc_active(&crtc->base) &&
> > + to_intel_plane_state(crtc->base.primary->state)-
> > >visible &&
> > + crtc->base.primary->fb != NULL;
>
> And then you can split this line up for a little more clarity. If you
> are taking the time to refactor into a separate function for
> readability, you may as well apply a little polish as well.
I really don't get what you're suggesting here. Can you please clarify?
> -Chris
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
