On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 04:12:07PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>> The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
>> restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
>> which consists only of reflections.
>>
>> Fix this by relaxing the check to ignore values which contain no
>> rotation flags.
>>
>> Fixes: 6e0c7c3358d4 ("drm/atomic: Reject attempts to use multiple rotation
>> angles at once")
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey at arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
>> index 362e3ea..44f4030 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
>> @@ -846,7 +846,8 @@ int drm_atomic_plane_set_property(struct drm_plane
>> *plane,
>> } else if (property == config->prop_src_h) {
>> state->src_h = val;
>> } else if (property == plane->rotation_property) {
>> - if (!is_power_of_2(val & DRM_ROTATE_MASK))
>> + if ((val & DRM_ROTATE_MASK) &&
>> + !is_power_of_2(val & DRM_ROTATE_MASK))
>
>NAK. You must always set one and only one rotation bit.
>
How do you do (DRM_ROTATE_90 | DRM_REFLECT_X) then?
Could you suggest the correct fix? Because right now a commit which
sets rotation = "reflect-x" fails on this check
Thanks,
Brian
>> return -EINVAL;
>> state->rotation = val;
>> } else if (property == plane->zpos_property) {
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>
>--
>Ville Syrjälä
>Intel OTC
