On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:34:07PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Always update the currrent crtc, fb and vertical offset after calling
> enable_fbc. We were forgetting to do so along the failure paths when
> enabling fbc synchronously. Fix this with a new helper to enable_fbc()
> and update the state simultaneously.
> 
> v2: Improve commit message (Chris).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> index c97aba2..fa9b004 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> @@ -308,6 +308,18 @@ bool intel_fbc_enabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>       return dev_priv->fbc.enabled;
>  }
>  
> +static void intel_fbc_enable(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> +                          struct drm_framebuffer *fb)

fb could be const

> +{
> +     struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = crtc->base.dev->dev_private;
> +
> +     dev_priv->fbc.enable_fbc(crtc);
> +
> +     dev_priv->fbc.crtc = crtc;
> +     dev_priv->fbc.fb_id = fb->base.id;
> +     dev_priv->fbc.y = crtc->base.y;
> +}
> +
>  static void intel_fbc_work_fn(struct work_struct *__work)
>  {
>       struct intel_fbc_work *work =
> @@ -321,13 +333,8 @@ static void intel_fbc_work_fn(struct work_struct *__work)
>               /* Double check that we haven't switched fb without cancelling
>                * the prior work.
>                */
> -             if (crtc_fb == work->fb) {
> -                     dev_priv->fbc.enable_fbc(work->crtc);
> -
> -                     dev_priv->fbc.crtc = work->crtc;
> -                     dev_priv->fbc.fb_id = crtc_fb->base.id;
> -                     dev_priv->fbc.y = work->crtc->base.y;
> -             }
> +             if (crtc_fb == work->fb)
> +                     intel_fbc_enable(work->crtc, work->fb);

The no locking or refcounts nature of this scares me, and should be
dealt with eventually.

But in the meantime it makes things nicer, so
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>

>  
>               dev_priv->fbc.fbc_work = NULL;
>       }
> @@ -361,7 +368,7 @@ static void intel_fbc_cancel_work(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>       dev_priv->fbc.fbc_work = NULL;
>  }
>  
> -static void intel_fbc_enable(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> +static void intel_fbc_schedule_enable(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>  {
>       struct intel_fbc_work *work;
>       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = crtc->base.dev->dev_private;
> @@ -373,7 +380,7 @@ static void intel_fbc_enable(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>       work = kzalloc(sizeof(*work), GFP_KERNEL);
>       if (work == NULL) {
>               DRM_ERROR("Failed to allocate FBC work structure\n");
> -             dev_priv->fbc.enable_fbc(crtc);
> +             intel_fbc_enable(crtc, crtc->base.primary->fb);
>               return;
>       }

BTW getting rid of this allocation would be nice. Would be one less
thing that can fail...

>  
> @@ -826,7 +833,7 @@ static void __intel_fbc_update(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>               __intel_fbc_disable(dev_priv);
>       }
>  
> -     intel_fbc_enable(intel_crtc);
> +     intel_fbc_schedule_enable(intel_crtc);
>       dev_priv->fbc.no_fbc_reason = FBC_OK;
>       return;
>  
> -- 
> 2.4.6
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

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

Reply via email to