Em Qui, 2015-10-22 às 09:52 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu:
> Op 20-10-15 om 15:49 schreef Paulo Zanoni:
> > 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)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return intel_crtc_active(&crtc->base) &&
> > + to_intel_plane_state(crtc->base.primary->state)-
> > >visible &&
> > + crtc->base.primary->fb != NULL;
> > +}
> >
> I've been considering something like this, but could it be changed to
> take atomic states as arguments?
I'm not sure. All I know is that this is still (both now and at the end
of the series) being called while the CRTC is already enabled, not
during modeset paths. The visible/invisible case seems to be the most
important check. The other two checks are like this simply because this
code was written a loooong time ago and was never updated while the
rest of the tree evolved.
Since there are so many things to update on the FBC code I was just
trying to move the code around without really over-analyzing it since
it seemed to be working. But I guess these days any line of i915 code
touched on a patch has to be perfect :)
Anyway, I'll try to update this code on this series since you & Chris &
Ville already asked about it.
> That way it will be easier to use when >1 flip depth is allowed in
> the future, and intel_crtc_active is not
> a check that should be used here.
>
> At some point in the near future I want to convert intel_unpin_work
> to take the previous and next crtc/plane
> states, that would become a lot easier if this code would be more
> atomic like. :)
>
> ~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
