Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] drm/i915: Fix fb object's frontbuffer-bits

["Kamble, Sagar A" <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>]

On 9/23/2015 1:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:46:24PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2015-09-14 14:16 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>:
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:35:42PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
>>>> Shared frontbuffer bits are causing warnings when same FB is displayed
>>>> in another plane without clearing the bits from previous plane.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Removing coversion of fb bits to 64 bit as it is not needed for now. (Daniel)
>>>>
>>>> Change-Id: Ic2df80747f314b82afd22f8326297c57d1e652c6
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar, Mahesh <mahesh1.kumar@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h     | 17 ++++++++++-------
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c |  2 +-
>>>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> index 16e604e..892aa78 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> @@ -2014,25 +2014,28 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops {
>>>>
>>>>   /*
>>>>    * Frontbuffer tracking bits. Set in obj->frontbuffer_bits while a gem bo is
>>>> - * considered to be the frontbuffer for the given plane interface-vise. This
>>>> + * considered to be the frontbuffer for the given plane interface-wise. This
>>>>    * doesn't mean that the hw necessarily already scans it out, but that any
>>>>    * rendering (by the cpu or gpu) will land in the frontbuffer eventually.
>>>>    *
>>>>    * We have one bit per pipe and per scanout plane type.
>>>>    */
>>>> -#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE 4
>>>> +#define INTEL_MAX_SPRITE_BITS_PER_PIPE 5
>>>> +#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE 8
>>>>   #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS \
>>>>        (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * I915_MAX_PIPES)
>>>>   #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_PRIMARY(pipe) \
>>>>        (1 << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
>>>>   #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_CURSOR(pipe) \
>>>> -     (1 << (1 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>> -#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE(pipe) \
>>>> -     (1 << (2 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>> +     (1 << (1 + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>> +#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE(pipe, plane) \
>>>> +     (1 << (2 + plane + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>>   #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_OVERLAY(pipe) \
>>>> -     (1 << (3 +(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>> +     (1 << (2 + INTEL_MAX_SPRITE_BITS_PER_PIPE + (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe))))
>>>>   #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_ALL_MASK(pipe) \
>>>> -     (0xf << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
>>>> +     (0xff << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
>>>> +#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE_MASK(pipe) \
>>>> +     (0x7C << (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * (pipe)))
>>> Patch was a bit confusing to read since tons of spurious whitespace
>>> change. Anyway looks good once applied except for
>>> INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_SPRITE_MASK which is unused and hence I removed it
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
>> Maybe we could have an IGT test for this...
> Excellent point. Sagar, can you please supply the missing igt for this
> issue?
Yes. Will start preparing.

Thanks
Sagar

>
> Thanks, Daniel

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx