| Message ID | 1425547288-16131-3-git-send-email-sonika.jindal@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > goto out; > } > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > - > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > - state->base.rotation); > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once without this check. I think this should be done now. -Daniel > > drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs); > > -- > 1.7.10.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > goto out; > > } > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > - > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > - state->base.rotation); > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > without this check. > > I think this should be done now. Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. > -Daniel > > > > drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs); > > > > -- > > 1.7.10.4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:17PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > > - > > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > > - state->base.rotation); > > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > > without this check. > > > > I think this should be done now. > > Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported > rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. plane->atomic_check just needs to reject them. Tbh I'm not sold on the value of trying to tell userspace which rotation works and which doesnt - generic userspace won't learn about y-tiling requirements either so this feels a bit pointless tbh. And rejecting stuff in atomic_check is what it's for. -Daniel
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:17PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > > > goto out; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > > > - > > > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > > > - state->base.rotation); > > > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > > > > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > > > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > > > without this check. > > > > > > I think this should be done now. > > > > Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported > > rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. > > plane->atomic_check just needs to reject them. Tbh I'm not sold on the > value of trying to tell userspace which rotation works and which doesnt - > generic userspace won't learn about y-tiling requirements either so this > feels a bit pointless tbh. And rejecting stuff in atomic_check is what > it's for. By that logic we shouldn't expose pixel formats or any other useful infromation either then.
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:56:23PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:17PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > > > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > > > > goto out; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > > > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > > > > - > > > > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > > > > - state->base.rotation); > > > > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > > > > > > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > > > > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > > > > without this check. > > > > > > > > I think this should be done now. > > > > > > Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported > > > rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. > > > > plane->atomic_check just needs to reject them. Tbh I'm not sold on the > > value of trying to tell userspace which rotation works and which doesnt - > > generic userspace won't learn about y-tiling requirements either so this > > feels a bit pointless tbh. And rejecting stuff in atomic_check is what > > it's for. > > By that logic we shouldn't expose pixel formats or any other useful > infromation either then. Well to be able to fix this we need to restrict the value-set of properties per-attachment. Since I very much want core atomic to decodd standardized properties, and if we create rotation per-plane then that's going to be fairly painful. That's quite a bit of work, and I'm not sure it's all that useful. And yeah that argument does extend somewhat to pixel formats too since without clueful userspace you can't really allocate a suitable buffer with just the list of pixel formats. They are useful though for a bit of shared input validation in the core (since most planes don't change the support pixel formats at runtime). -Daniel
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:03:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:56:23PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:17PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > > > > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > > > > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > > > > > - > > > > > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > > > > > - state->base.rotation); > > > > > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > > > > > > > > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > > > > > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > > > > > without this check. > > > > > > > > > > I think this should be done now. > > > > > > > > Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported > > > > rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. > > > > > > plane->atomic_check just needs to reject them. Tbh I'm not sold on the > > > value of trying to tell userspace which rotation works and which doesnt - > > > generic userspace won't learn about y-tiling requirements either so this > > > feels a bit pointless tbh. And rejecting stuff in atomic_check is what > > > it's for. > > > > By that logic we shouldn't expose pixel formats or any other useful > > infromation either then. > > Well to be able to fix this we need to restrict the value-set of > properties per-attachment. Since I very much want core atomic to decodd > standardized properties, and if we create rotation per-plane then that's > going to be fairly painful. AFAICS it should be a simple matter of s/config->rotation_property/plane->rotation_property/ Well, unless you want to go optimize things so that we don't create multiple properties with the same supported bitmask.
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 07:22:46PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:03:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:56:23PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:17PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:51:28PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > > > > > > > @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) > > > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = > > > > > > > - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, > > > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | > > > > > > > - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) > > > > > > > - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, > > > > > > > - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, > > > > > > > - state->base.rotation); > > > > > > > + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); > > > > > > > > > > > > I think back from the original rotation work we've had the leftover task > > > > > > to move this into common code so that we do create the property just once > > > > > > without this check. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this should be done now. > > > > > > > > > > Someone should also make it so we can again have different supported > > > > > rotation bits on different planes. I'll have need for it on CHV I think. > > > > > > > > plane->atomic_check just needs to reject them. Tbh I'm not sold on the > > > > value of trying to tell userspace which rotation works and which doesnt - > > > > generic userspace won't learn about y-tiling requirements either so this > > > > feels a bit pointless tbh. And rejecting stuff in atomic_check is what > > > > it's for. > > > > > > By that logic we shouldn't expose pixel formats or any other useful > > > infromation either then. > > > > Well to be able to fix this we need to restrict the value-set of > > properties per-attachment. Since I very much want core atomic to decodd > > standardized properties, and if we create rotation per-plane then that's > > going to be fairly painful. > > AFAICS it should be a simple matter of > s/config->rotation_property/plane->rotation_property/ > Well, unless you want to go optimize things so that we don't create multiple > properties with the same supported bitmask. Hm yeah that'd work too. I guess I've been a bit dense today, time for w/e ;-) Cheers, Daniel
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h index 56b97c4..870e076 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h @@ -4825,7 +4825,9 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells { #define PLANE_CTL_ALPHA_HW_PREMULTIPLY ( 3 << 4) #define PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_MASK 0x3 #define PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_0 0x0 +#define PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_90 0x1 #define PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_180 0x2 +#define PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_270 0x3 #define _PLANE_STRIDE_1_A 0x70188 #define _PLANE_STRIDE_2_A 0x70288 #define _PLANE_STRIDE_3_A 0x70388 diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index afdc101..9387ba0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -2189,11 +2189,11 @@ static bool need_vtd_wa(struct drm_device *dev) return false; } -static int +unsigned int intel_tile_height(struct drm_device *dev, uint32_t bits_per_pixel, uint64_t fb_format_modifier) { - int tile_height; + unsigned int tile_height; switch (fb_format_modifier) { case DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NONE: @@ -2240,7 +2240,7 @@ intel_fb_align_height(struct drm_device *dev, int height, uint32_t pixel_format, { uint32_t bits_per_pixel = drm_format_plane_cpp(pixel_format, 0) * 8; - return ALIGN(height, intel_fb_tile_height(dev, bits_per_pixel, + return ALIGN(height, intel_tile_height(dev, bits_per_pixel, fb_format_modifier)); } @@ -2380,6 +2380,28 @@ int intel_fb_ggtt_view(struct drm_plane_state *plane_state, return -EINVAL; } + switch (fb->pixel_format) { + case DRM_FORMAT_XRGB8888: + case DRM_FORMAT_ARGB8888: + case DRM_FORMAT_XBGR8888: + case DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888: + case DRM_FORMAT_XRGB2101010: + case DRM_FORMAT_ARGB2101010: + case DRM_FORMAT_XBGR2101010: + case DRM_FORMAT_ABGR2101010: + case DRM_FORMAT_YUYV: + case DRM_FORMAT_YVYU: + case DRM_FORMAT_UYVY: + case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY: + case DRM_FORMAT_NV12: + break; + + default: + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unsupported pixel format:%d for 90/270 rotation!\n", + fb->pixel_format); + return -EINVAL; + } + return 1; } @@ -2999,7 +3021,10 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; int pipe = intel_crtc->pipe; - u32 plane_ctl, stride_div; + u32 plane_ctl, stride_div, stride; + u32 tile_height, plane_offset, plane_size; + unsigned int rotation; + int x_offset, y_offset; unsigned long surf_addr; struct drm_plane *plane; @@ -3063,8 +3088,21 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct drm_crtc *crtc, plane = crtc->primary; plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_PLANE_GAMMA_DISABLE; - if (plane->state->rotation == BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)) + + rotation = plane->state->rotation; + switch (rotation) { + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90): + plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_90; + break; + + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180): plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_180; + break; + + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270): + plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_270; + break; + } obj = intel_fb_obj(fb); stride_div = intel_fb_stride_alignment(dev, fb->modifier[0], @@ -3073,17 +3111,33 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct drm_crtc *crtc, I915_WRITE(PLANE_CTL(pipe, 0), plane_ctl); + if (rotation & (BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270))) { + /* stride = Surface height in tiles */ + tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb->bits_per_pixel, + fb->modifier[0]); + stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb->height, tile_height); + x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - (plane->state->src_h >> 16); + y_offset = x; + plane_size = ((plane->state->src_w >> 16) - 1) << 16 | + ((plane->state->src_h >> 16) - 1); + } else { + stride = fb->pitches[0] / stride_div; + x_offset = x; + y_offset = y; + plane_size = ((plane->state->src_h >> 16) - 1) << 16 | + ((plane->state->src_w >> 16) - 1); + } + plane_offset = y_offset << 16 | x_offset; + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Writing base %08lX %d,%d,%d,%d pitch=%d\n", surf_addr, x, y, fb->width, fb->height, fb->pitches[0]); I915_WRITE(PLANE_POS(pipe, 0), 0); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_OFFSET(pipe, 0), (y << 16) | x); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_SIZE(pipe, 0), - ((plane->state->src_h >> 16) - 1) << 16 | - ((plane->state->src_w >> 16) - 1)); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_STRIDE(pipe, 0), fb->pitches[0] / stride_div); + I915_WRITE(PLANE_OFFSET(pipe, 0), plane_offset); + I915_WRITE(PLANE_SIZE(pipe, 0), plane_size); + I915_WRITE(PLANE_STRIDE(pipe, 0), stride); I915_WRITE(PLANE_SURF(pipe, 0), surf_addr); POSTING_READ(PLANE_SURF(pipe, 0)); @@ -12445,23 +12499,32 @@ static struct drm_plane *intel_primary_plane_create(struct drm_device *dev, intel_primary_formats, num_formats, DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY); - if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4) { - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) - drm_object_attach_property(&primary->base.base, - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, - state->base.rotation); - } + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4) + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, primary); drm_plane_helper_add(&primary->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs); return &primary->base; } +void intel_create_rotation_property(struct drm_device *dev, struct intel_plane *plane) +{ + if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) { + unsigned long flags = BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | + BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180); + + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) + flags |= BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270); + + dev->mode_config.rotation_property = + drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, flags); + } + if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) + drm_object_attach_property(&plane->base.base, + dev->mode_config.rotation_property, + plane->base.state->rotation); +} + static int intel_check_cursor_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct intel_plane_state *state) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h index 715510a..4f428f6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h @@ -988,6 +988,11 @@ intel_rotation_90_or_270(unsigned int rotation) } struct sg_table *intel_rotate_fb_obj_pages(struct i915_ggtt_view *ggtt_view, struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); +unsigned int +intel_tile_height(struct drm_device *dev, uint32_t bits_per_pixel, + uint64_t fb_modifier); +void intel_create_rotation_property(struct drm_device *dev, + struct intel_plane *plane); bool intel_wm_need_update(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *state); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c index addc90e..960f993 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c @@ -189,9 +189,12 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct intel_plane *intel_plane = to_intel_plane(drm_plane); const int pipe = intel_plane->pipe; const int plane = intel_plane->plane + 1; - u32 plane_ctl, stride_div; + u32 plane_ctl, stride_div, stride; int pixel_size = drm_format_plane_cpp(fb->pixel_format, 0); unsigned long surf_addr; + u32 tile_height, plane_offset, plane_size; + unsigned int rotation; + int x_offset, y_offset; plane_ctl = I915_READ(PLANE_CTL(pipe, plane)); @@ -262,8 +265,20 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, MISSING_CASE(fb->modifier[0]); } - if (drm_plane->state->rotation == BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)) + rotation = drm_plane->state->rotation; + switch (rotation) { + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90): + plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_90; + break; + + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180): plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_180; + break; + + case BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270): + plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ROTATE_270; + break; + } plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_ENABLE; plane_ctl |= PLANE_CTL_PIPE_CSC_ENABLE; @@ -283,10 +298,26 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, surf_addr = intel_plane_obj_offset(intel_plane, obj); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_OFFSET(pipe, plane), (y << 16) | x); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_STRIDE(pipe, plane), fb->pitches[0] / stride_div); + if (rotation & (BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270))) { + /* stride: Surface height in tiles */ + tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb->bits_per_pixel, + fb->modifier[0]); + stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb->height, tile_height); + plane_size = (src_w << 16) | src_h; + x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - src_h; + y_offset = x; + } else { + stride = fb->pitches[0] / stride_div; + plane_size = (src_h << 16) | src_w; + x_offset = x; + y_offset = y; + } + plane_offset = y_offset << 16 | x_offset; + + I915_WRITE(PLANE_OFFSET(pipe, plane), plane_offset); + I915_WRITE(PLANE_STRIDE(pipe, plane), stride); I915_WRITE(PLANE_POS(pipe, plane), (crtc_y << 16) | crtc_x); - I915_WRITE(PLANE_SIZE(pipe, plane), (crtc_h << 16) | crtc_w); + I915_WRITE(PLANE_SIZE(pipe, plane), plane_size); I915_WRITE(PLANE_CTL(pipe, plane), plane_ctl); I915_WRITE(PLANE_SURF(pipe, plane), surf_addr); POSTING_READ(PLANE_SURF(pipe, plane)); @@ -1519,16 +1550,7 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane) goto out; } - if (!dev->mode_config.rotation_property) - dev->mode_config.rotation_property = - drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev, - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | - BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)); - - if (dev->mode_config.rotation_property) - drm_object_attach_property(&intel_plane->base.base, - dev->mode_config.rotation_property, - state->base.rotation); + intel_create_rotation_property(dev, intel_plane); drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs);
v2: Moving creation of property in a function, checking for 90/270 rotation simultaneously (Chris) Letting primary plane to be positioned v3: Adding if/else for 90/270 and rest params programming, adding check for pixel_format, some cleanup (review comments) v4: Adding right pixel_formats, using src_* params instead of crtc_* for offset and size programming (Ville) v5: Rebased on -nightly and Tvrtko's series for gtt remapping. Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> --- Please note that this is on top of Tvrtko's patches for rotated gtt remapping titled: [PATCH v2 0/8] Skylake 90/270 display rotation --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 52 ++++++++++++----- 4 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)