On 90/270 rotation case source width and height was not compared
properly with destination height and width check plane.Which added
erroneous check while doing scaling or normal 90/270 rotation.
Signed-off-by: Nabendu Maiti <nabendu.bikash.ma...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index 688d484..cd5bb28 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -13723,6 +13723,9 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane,
int min_scale = DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING;
int max_scale = DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING;
bool can_position = false;
+ struct drm_rect *src = &state->src;
+ struct drm_rect *dest = &state->dst;
+ int ret = -1;
/* use scaler when colorkey is not required */
if (INTEL_INFO(plane->dev)->gen >= 9 &&
@@ -13732,11 +13735,26 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane,
can_position = true;
}
- return drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, &state->src,
- &state->dst, &state->clip,
+ /*
+ * FIXME the following code does a bunch of fuzzy adjustments to the
+ * coordinates and sizes for rotations. We probably need some way to
+ * decide whether more strict checking should be done instead.
+ */
+ if (fb)
+ drm_rect_rotate(src, fb->width << 16, fb->height << 16,
+ state->base.rotation);
+
+ ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, crtc, fb, src,
+ dest, &state->clip,
min_scale, max_scale,
can_position, true,
&state->visible);
+
+ /* Restore the originl unrotated co-ordinates */
+ if (fb)
+ drm_rect_rotate_inv(src, fb->width << 16, fb->height << 16,
+ state->base.rotation);
+ return ret;
}
static void
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
