On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 01:43:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:18:53PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > Op 18-02-16 om 12:07 schreef Daniel Vetter: > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:54:43AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > >> Because encoder <-> connector mapping is fixed when not moving to > > >> another crtc we can just reject connectors trying to steal an encoder > > >> from a connector not part of the state. This won't break MST on i915 > > >> because in that case connectors will be part of the state if you switch > > >> them between crtc's. If they're not they stay on the same crtc, and > > >> encoder stealing would have failed anyway. > > > We must do this for backwards compat. setCrtc on a connector that needs an > > > encoder already used on some other crtc is supposed to disable that > > > encoder (and the entire pipe if it's all unused) if we need it. > > > -Daniel > > > > > Could this be done from the setcrtc helper? Seems with atomic that wouldn't be desired behavior. > > If you want to avoid stealing with atomic, supply _all_ the > connectors/crtcs when doing an atomic modeset. After all the point of > atomic is to do global updates. I don't think it makes sense to have a > special case just for setcrtc, since it makes compat/transition > unecesserily complicated. I disagree. Having properties change magically is just a bad idea IMO. As far as checking for conflicts, IIRC I did that with a few bitmasks in my original atomic code, and it was pretty trivial. The current stealing code we have is way too complicated for what it does IMO. > And we do this kind of stealing in other places > too with public api objects, e.g. if you move a plane. Mm. What exactly do we steal with planes? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
