Re: [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915: Add 180 degree primary plane rotation support

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 01:45:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:11:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:10:28PM +0530, sonika.jindal@intel.com wrote:
> > > +		/* FBC does not work on some platforms for rotated planes */
> > > +			if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen <= 4 && !IS_G4X(dev)) {
> > > +				if (dev_priv->fbc.plane == intel_crtc->plane &&
> > > +				intel_plane->rotation != BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0))
> > > +					intel_disable_fbc(dev);
> > > +			/* If rotation was set earlier and new rotation is 0,
> > > +			we might have disabled fbc earlier. So update it now */
> > > +				else if (intel_plane->rotation == BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)
> > > +					&& old_val != BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)) {
> > > +					mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > +					intel_update_fbc(dev);
> > > +					mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > +				}
> > > +			}
> > 
> > Indentation is screwed up here. Also if we convert some of the checks into
> > early bails we could de-indent this by one level.
> > 
> > Also Chris mentioned that on some platforms this won't work and it's more
> > future-proof to just do a full modeset until we have the proper
> > infrastructure.
> 
> Apparently this review here was never addressed, as Chris just pointed out
> on irc. I've dropped the patch again.
> 
> I think we need:
> - The same sequence as with the sprite set_property function, i.e. we need
>   to call the update_plane function (not the raw low-level one, the
>   high-level with all the checks).
> - The fbc check is wrong and will miss updates when the crtc is off. We
>   need to move this into the general list of checks in intel_update_fbc.
> - Since this seems to be buggy I want added testcases to combine fbc
>   correctness with screen rotation. Probably best to reuse the existing
>   fbc testcase and add a bunch or rotated tests.

Ok, the check in update_fbc is there, I've been blind. Sorry about all the
confusion. So just amounts of calling the higher level function and we can
forgo the fbc testing.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch