Op 21-01-16 om 14:27 schreef Zanoni, Paulo R: > Em Qui, 2016-01-21 às 14:04 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu: >> Op 19-01-16 om 14:35 schreef Paulo Zanoni: >>> We unconditionally disable/update FBC even during the page flip >>> IOCTLs, and an unconditional disable/update at every atomic commit >>> touching the primary plane shouldn't impact PC state residency >>> noticeably. Besides, the code that checks for rotation is a good >>> hint >>> that we may be forgetting something else, so let's leave all the >>> decisions to intel_fbc.c, making the code much safer. >>> >>> Once we have the code to properly make FBC enable/update decisions >>> based on atomic states, with proper locking, then we'll be able to >>> evaluate whether it will be worth trying to optimize the cases >>> where a >>> disable isn't needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> I would rather have this patch remove those 2 members entirely, but I >> can work with this for now. > And what would be the new way to know whether a given atomic commit > touches the primary plane of a given crtc? if (drm_atomic_get_existing_plane_state(old_crtc_state->state, crtc->primary)) >> Could nuke at least disable_fbc though, being redundant with >> update_fbc. :) > Check patch 11 :) > >> ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
