| Message ID | 1427704497-28344-1-git-send-email-sonika.jindal@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made it into di-nightly yet. Assuming Ville's patch lands first, this is Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> Matt > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index ceb2e61..f0bbc22 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -12150,16 +12150,21 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, > struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst; > struct drm_rect *src = &state->src; > const struct drm_rect *clip = &state->clip; > + bool can_position = false; > int ret; > > crtc = crtc ? crtc : plane->crtc; > intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); > > + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) > + can_position = true; > + > ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, > src, dest, clip, > DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, > DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, > - false, true, &state->visible); > + can_position, true, > + &state->visible); > if (ret) > return ret; > > -- > 1.7.10.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On 4/1/2015 11:51 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch > > [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() > > to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle > at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made > it into di-nightly yet. > Right now, can_position is used to check for the scenarios where the primary plane is not covering the complete crtc. This could be due to positioning or a smaller fb on primary plane. With Ville's patch, we would be able to allow positioning to happen. But I need it here, to create a smaller fb for 90/270 rotation. I agree that, until Ville's patch is there, we won't be entertaining any positioning requests on the primary plane and we will not be throwing any error also. But for the 90/270 testcase in kms_rotation_crc to go through, we would need this to create a smaller fb so that we can rotate it. > Assuming Ville's patch lands first, this is > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> > > > Matt > >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 7 ++++++- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> index ceb2e61..f0bbc22 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >> @@ -12150,16 +12150,21 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, >> struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst; >> struct drm_rect *src = &state->src; >> const struct drm_rect *clip = &state->clip; >> + bool can_position = false; >> int ret; >> >> crtc = crtc ? crtc : plane->crtc; >> intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); >> >> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) >> + can_position = true; >> + >> ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, >> src, dest, clip, >> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, >> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, >> - false, true, &state->visible); >> + can_position, true, >> + &state->visible); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> -- >> 1.7.10.4 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Intel-gfx mailing list >> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:08:27AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > On 4/1/2015 11:51 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > >>Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > > >It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch > > > > [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() > > > >to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle > >at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made > >it into di-nightly yet. > > > Right now, can_position is used to check for the scenarios where the > primary plane is not covering the complete crtc. This could be due > to positioning or a smaller fb on primary plane. > With Ville's patch, we would be able to allow positioning to happen. > But I need it here, to create a smaller fb for 90/270 rotation. > > I agree that, until Ville's patch is there, we won't be entertaining > any positioning requests on the primary plane and we will not be > throwing any error also. Right...and I think failing to throw an error would be seen as a bug, which is why I think Ville's patch needs to go in first. Since it's already been reviewed, I'm not aware of anything holding that up from happening. > But for the 90/270 testcase in kms_rotation_crc to go through, we > would need this to create a smaller fb so that we can rotate it. So is your worry here that drm_plane_helper_check_update() doesn't understand rotation and winds up mixing up width/height? If so, I think the proper course of action is to write a patch for the helper function that makes it rotation-aware. Matt > > >Assuming Ville's patch lands first, this is > >Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> > > > > > >Matt > > > >>--- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>index ceb2e61..f0bbc22 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>@@ -12150,16 +12150,21 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, > >> struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst; > >> struct drm_rect *src = &state->src; > >> const struct drm_rect *clip = &state->clip; > >>+ bool can_position = false; > >> int ret; > >> > >> crtc = crtc ? crtc : plane->crtc; > >> intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); > >> > >>+ if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) > >>+ can_position = true; > >>+ > >> ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, > >> src, dest, clip, > >> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, > >> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, > >>- false, true, &state->visible); > >>+ can_position, true, > >>+ &state->visible); > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> > >>-- > >>1.7.10.4 > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Intel-gfx mailing list > >>Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > >>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > >
On 4/2/2015 9:18 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:08:27AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: >> >> >> On 4/1/2015 11:51 PM, Matt Roper wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> >>> >>> It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch >>> >>> [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() >>> >>> to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle >>> at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made >>> it into di-nightly yet. >>> >> Right now, can_position is used to check for the scenarios where the >> primary plane is not covering the complete crtc. This could be due >> to positioning or a smaller fb on primary plane. >> With Ville's patch, we would be able to allow positioning to happen. >> But I need it here, to create a smaller fb for 90/270 rotation. >> >> I agree that, until Ville's patch is there, we won't be entertaining >> any positioning requests on the primary plane and we will not be >> throwing any error also. > > Right...and I think failing to throw an error would be seen as a bug, > which is why I think Ville's patch needs to go in first. Since it's > already been reviewed, I'm not aware of anything holding that up from > happening. > Agree, will check with Daniel on this. >> But for the 90/270 testcase in kms_rotation_crc to go through, we >> would need this to create a smaller fb so that we can rotate it. > > So is your worry here that drm_plane_helper_check_update() doesn't > understand rotation and winds up mixing up width/height? If so, I think > the proper course of action is to write a patch for the helper function > that makes it rotation-aware. > No, the worry is that it rejects a smaller fb for primary plane for all the platforms. I mentioned 90/270 rotation, because I create a smaller fb (rather than the full screen fb), so that the rotated plane fits into the screen. If it is lets say 1920x1080, and the pipe is set at 1920x1080, after rotation the plane becomes 1080x1920 and the height of the plane surpasses that of crtc. For gen >=9 , we can have smaller fb for primary plane which might not cover the entire crtc. Regards, Sonika > > Matt > >> >>> Assuming Ville's patch lands first, this is >>> Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> >>> >>> >>> Matt >>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 7 ++++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >>>> index ceb2e61..f0bbc22 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c >>>> @@ -12150,16 +12150,21 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, >>>> struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst; >>>> struct drm_rect *src = &state->src; >>>> const struct drm_rect *clip = &state->clip; >>>> + bool can_position = false; >>>> int ret; >>>> >>>> crtc = crtc ? crtc : plane->crtc; >>>> intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); >>>> >>>> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) >>>> + can_position = true; >>>> + >>>> ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, >>>> src, dest, clip, >>>> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, >>>> DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, >>>> - false, true, &state->visible); >>>> + can_position, true, >>>> + &state->visible); >>>> if (ret) >>>> return ret; >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.10.4 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Intel-gfx mailing list >>>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >>> >
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:50:51AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > On 4/2/2015 9:18 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:08:27AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 4/1/2015 11:51 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: > >>>>Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > >>> > >>>It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch > >>> > >>> [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() > >>> > >>>to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle > >>>at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made > >>>it into di-nightly yet. > >>> > >>Right now, can_position is used to check for the scenarios where the > >>primary plane is not covering the complete crtc. This could be due > >>to positioning or a smaller fb on primary plane. > >>With Ville's patch, we would be able to allow positioning to happen. > >>But I need it here, to create a smaller fb for 90/270 rotation. > >> > >>I agree that, until Ville's patch is there, we won't be entertaining > >>any positioning requests on the primary plane and we will not be > >>throwing any error also. > > > >Right...and I think failing to throw an error would be seen as a bug, > >which is why I think Ville's patch needs to go in first. Since it's > >already been reviewed, I'm not aware of anything holding that up from > >happening. > > > Agree, will check with Daniel on this. > > >>But for the 90/270 testcase in kms_rotation_crc to go through, we > >>would need this to create a smaller fb so that we can rotate it. > > > >So is your worry here that drm_plane_helper_check_update() doesn't > >understand rotation and winds up mixing up width/height? If so, I think > >the proper course of action is to write a patch for the helper function > >that makes it rotation-aware. > > > No, the worry is that it rejects a smaller fb for primary plane for all the > platforms. I mentioned 90/270 rotation, because I create a smaller fb > (rather than the full screen fb), so that the rotated plane fits into the > screen. If it is lets say 1920x1080, and the pipe is set at 1920x1080, after > rotation the plane becomes 1080x1920 and the height of the plane surpasses > that of crtc. > For gen >=9 , we can have smaller fb for primary plane which might not cover > the entire crtc. That sounds like a bug in the helper though if it rejects such a framebuffer. -Daniel
On 4/7/2015 1:46 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:50:51AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: >> >> >> On 4/2/2015 9:18 PM, Matt Roper wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:08:27AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/1/2015 11:51 PM, Matt Roper wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:04:56PM +0530, Sonika Jindal wrote: >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> >>>>> >>>>> It looks like this is dependent on Ville's patch >>>>> >>>>> [PATCH v2 6/9] drm/i915: Pass the primary plane position to .update_primary_plane() >>>>> >>>>> to actually let us do something sensible with the destination rectangle >>>>> at the hardware level. Looks like that patch has a r-b, but hasn't made >>>>> it into di-nightly yet. >>>>> >>>> Right now, can_position is used to check for the scenarios where the >>>> primary plane is not covering the complete crtc. This could be due >>>> to positioning or a smaller fb on primary plane. >>>> With Ville's patch, we would be able to allow positioning to happen. >>>> But I need it here, to create a smaller fb for 90/270 rotation. >>>> >>>> I agree that, until Ville's patch is there, we won't be entertaining >>>> any positioning requests on the primary plane and we will not be >>>> throwing any error also. >>> >>> Right...and I think failing to throw an error would be seen as a bug, >>> which is why I think Ville's patch needs to go in first. Since it's >>> already been reviewed, I'm not aware of anything holding that up from >>> happening. >>> >> Agree, will check with Daniel on this. >> >>>> But for the 90/270 testcase in kms_rotation_crc to go through, we >>>> would need this to create a smaller fb so that we can rotate it. >>> >>> So is your worry here that drm_plane_helper_check_update() doesn't >>> understand rotation and winds up mixing up width/height? If so, I think >>> the proper course of action is to write a patch for the helper function >>> that makes it rotation-aware. >>> >> No, the worry is that it rejects a smaller fb for primary plane for all the >> platforms. I mentioned 90/270 rotation, because I create a smaller fb >> (rather than the full screen fb), so that the rotated plane fits into the >> screen. If it is lets say 1920x1080, and the pipe is set at 1920x1080, after >> rotation the plane becomes 1080x1920 and the height of the plane surpasses >> that of crtc. >> For gen >=9 , we can have smaller fb for primary plane which might not cover >> the entire crtc. > > That sounds like a bug in the helper though if it rejects such a > framebuffer. > -Daniel Till now we used to have primary plane covering the crtc, so its not a bug. For gen > 9 we can have smaller primary planes (or with other platforms as well?) Anyways, we need to add this patch to get past that restriction. Regards, Sonika >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index ceb2e61..f0bbc22 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -12150,16 +12150,21 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst; struct drm_rect *src = &state->src; const struct drm_rect *clip = &state->clip; + bool can_position = false; int ret; crtc = crtc ? crtc : plane->crtc; intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) + can_position = true; + ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, src, dest, clip, DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING, - false, true, &state->visible); + can_position, true, + &state->visible); if (ret) return ret;
Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)