Op 20-10-15 om 15:49 schreef Paulo Zanoni:
> We're going to kill intel_fbc_find_crtc(), that's why a big part of
> the logic moved from intel_fbc_find_crtc() to crtc_is_valid().
>
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> index b9cfd16..1162787 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> @@ -538,27 +538,33 @@ static void set_no_fbc_reason(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv,
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling FBC: %s\n", reason);
> }
>
> +static bool crtc_is_valid(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = crtc->base.dev->dev_private;
> + enum pipe pipe = crtc->pipe;
> +
> + if ((IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 8) &&
> + pipe != PIPE_A)
> + return false;
> +
> + return intel_crtc_active(&crtc->base) &&
> + to_intel_plane_state(crtc->base.primary->state)->visible &&
> + crtc->base.primary->fb != NULL;
> +}
>
I've been considering something like this, but could it be changed to take
atomic states as arguments?
That way it will be easier to use when >1 flip depth is allowed in the future,
and intel_crtc_active is not
a check that should be used here.
At some point in the near future I want to convert intel_unpin_work to take the
previous and next crtc/plane
states, that would become a lot easier if this code would be more atomic like.
:)
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
