On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 03:18:25PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:03:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:21:40PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:15:00PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:26PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pass BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) instead of DRM_ROTATE_0 to skl_update_scaler().
> > > > > > The former is a mask, the latter just the bit number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fortunately the only thing skl_update_scaler() does with the rotation
> > > > > > is check if it's 90/270 degrees or not, and so in this case it would
> > > > > > still do the right thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Ping, anyone care to r-b this one?
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Looks like this bug has been present since scalers were first added in
> > > > 6156a45602f9 ("drm/i915: skylake primary plane scaling using shared scalers")
> > >
> > > Pushed to dinq an appropriate Fixes: comment added. Thanks for the review.
> >
> > Do we have an igt for this? If not need to capture it and make it
> > something we must fixe before more scaler stuff lands.
>
> There's no change in behavior from this fix, so there's nothing to test.
Ah, should have read things more carefully, I thought this was the fix for
the other recent rotation fail you've patched. _That_ on definitely should
come with an igt.
-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
