On 5/14/2023 10:01 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 01:12, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
Take into account the plane rotation and flipping when calculating src
positions for the wide plane parts.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Do we need to have a fixes tag for this? This means we dont consider
rotation while calculating src position today which is a bug?
Hmm, I thought that I had a check forbidding rotation with the current
approach, but I don't see it. Most probably I thought about it and
then forgot to add it.
The proper fix should be to disallow it for static SSPP case. I'll
include the patch into v3.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 27 ++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
index 2e63eb0a2f3f..d43e04fc4578 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
@@ -887,16 +887,6 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
return -EINVAL;
}
- pipe_cfg->src_rect = new_plane_state->src;
-
- /* state->src is 16.16, src_rect is not */
- pipe_cfg->src_rect.x1 >>= 16;
- pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2 >>= 16;
- pipe_cfg->src_rect.y1 >>= 16;
- pipe_cfg->src_rect.y2 >>= 16;
-
- pipe_cfg->dst_rect = new_plane_state->dst;
-
fb_rect.x2 = new_plane_state->fb->width;
fb_rect.y2 = new_plane_state->fb->height;
@@ -912,6 +902,15 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
max_linewidth = pdpu->catalog->caps->max_linewidth;
+ /* state->src is 16.16, src_rect is not */
+ drm_rect_fp_to_int(&pipe_cfg->src_rect, &new_plane_state->src);
+
+ pipe_cfg->dst_rect = new_plane_state->dst;
+
+ drm_rect_rotate(&pipe_cfg->src_rect,
+ new_plane_state->fb->width, new_plane_state->fb->height,
+ new_plane_state->rotation);
+
if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) > max_linewidth) {
/*
* In parallel multirect case only the half of the usual width
@@ -959,6 +958,14 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
r_pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x1 = pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2;
}
+ drm_rect_rotate_inv(&pipe_cfg->src_rect,
+ new_plane_state->fb->width, new_plane_state->fb->height,
+ new_plane_state->rotation);
+ if (r_pipe->sspp)
Dont you need to check for if (r_pipe_cfg) here and not if
(r_pipe->sspp) because parameter you are passing is the r_pipe_cfg to
drm_rect_rotate_inv().
Of course not. r_pipe_cfg is a pointer to the field in pstate. We know
that it can not be NULL.
Ack, and my bad for not checking that r_pipe_cfg points to a field in
pstate but .... it was just weird though that you are checking for
r_pipe->sspp before calling a method which really doesnt care if its
null or not. How about you use drm_rect_visible(r_pipe_cfg->src_rect)
If its not set, it wont be visible too.
So we rotated the pipe_cfg once, then rotated_inv it to restore the
rectangle to its original state, but r_pipe_cfg's rectangle was never
rotated as it was not allocated before this function so it will remain
in inverse rotated state now right?
No. r_pipe_cfg is set beforehand to the half of the rotated pipe_cfg.
Ok i got it now. Instead of directly operating on the plane_state's
rectangle which makes you to invert again why not just use a temporary
drm_rect which stores the rotated pipe_cfg->src_rect. That way you dont
have to invert anything?
+ drm_rect_rotate_inv(&r_pipe_cfg->src_rect,
+ new_plane_state->fb->width, new_plane_state->fb->height,
+ new_plane_state->rotation);
+
ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, pipe, pipe_cfg, fmt);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
