On 27 October 2017 at 05:54, Harish Krupo <harish.krupo....@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@imgtec.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, 2017-10-23 16:20:54 +0530, Harish Krupo wrote:
>>> This passes 33/37 deqp tests related to partial_update, 4 are not
>>> supported. Tests not supported:
>>> dEQP-EGL.functional.negative_partial_update.not_postable_surface
>>> dEQP-EGL.functional.negative_partial_update.not_current_surface
>>> dEQP-EGL.functional.negative_partial_update.buffer_preserved
>>> dEQP-EGL.functional.negative_partial_update.not_current_surface2
>>> Reason: No matching egl config found.
>>>
>>> v2: Remove unnecessary return statement. Keep function names
>>> consistent. (Emil Velikov)
>>> Add not supported list to commit message. (Eric Engestrom)
>>>
>>> v3: Remove explicit with_damage variable. (Eric Engestrom)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Harish Krupo <harish.krupo....@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c | 54
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c
>>> b/src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c
>>> index b38eb1c335..8846099d57 100644
>>> --- a/src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c
>>> +++ b/src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c
>>> @@ -790,27 +790,44 @@ create_wl_buffer(struct dri2_egl_display *dri2_dpy,
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Called via eglSetDamageRegionKHR(), drv->API.SetDamageRegion().
>>> + */
>>> static EGLBoolean
>>> -try_damage_buffer(struct dri2_egl_surface *dri2_surf,
>>> - const EGLint *rects,
>>> - EGLint n_rects)
>>> +dri2_wl_set_damage_region(_EGLDriver *drv,
>>> + _EGLDisplay *dpy,
>>> + _EGLSurface *surf,
>>> + const EGLint *rects,
>>> + EGLint n_rects)
>>> {
>>> - if (wl_proxy_get_version((struct wl_proxy *)
>>> dri2_surf->wl_surface_wrapper)
>>> - < WL_SURFACE_DAMAGE_BUFFER_SINCE_VERSION)
>>> - return EGL_FALSE;
>>> + struct dri2_egl_surface *dri2_surf = dri2_egl_surface(surf);
>>>
>>> - for (int i = 0; i < n_rects; i++) {
>>> - const int *rect = &rects[i * 4];
>>> + /* The spec doesn't mention what should be returned in case of
>>> + * failure in setting the damage buffer with the window system, so
>>> + * setting the damage to maximum surface area
>>> + */
>>> + if (!n_rects ||
>>> + wl_proxy_get_version((struct wl_proxy *)
>>> dri2_surf->wl_surface_wrapper)
>>> + < WL_SURFACE_DAMAGE_BUFFER_SINCE_VERSION) {
>>> + wl_surface_damage(dri2_surf->wl_surface_wrapper,
>>> + 0, 0, INT32_MAX, INT32_MAX);
>>> + } else {
>>
>> I know Emil suggested you remove the `return` in an earlier version, but
>> if you add it back here you can drop the else, and the diff will look
>> much cleaner, keeping only the version check getting an `|| !n_rects`
>> and `return false` becoming `damage(everything)`.
>>
>> Other than that, it looks good to me. Thanks :)
>>
>
> Ok, will do that change.
> It would be something like this:
> if (!n_rects ||
> wl_proxy_get_version((struct wl_proxy *) dri2_surf->wl_surface_wrapper)
> < WL_SURFACE_DAMAGE_BUFFER_SINCE_VERSION) {
> wl_surface_damage(dri2_surf->wl_surface_wrapper,
> 0, 0, INT32_MAX, INT32_MAX);
> if (!n_rects)
> return EGL_TRUE;
>
> return EGL_FALSE;
> }
>
> I have a small confusion though:
> As per spec [1]:
> * If eglSetDamageRegionKHR has already been called on <surface> since the
> most recent frame boundary, an EGL_BAD_ACCESS error is generated
>
> The "already been called" part is confusing. Should it be interpreted
> as already been called and the previous call returned a true value or it
> has already been called irrespective of the previous return value?
>
> AFAICT from deqp [2]: it expects true on the first call, false on the
> second and expects EGL_BAD_ACCESS (it follows the 2nd approach where
> irrespective of the return value, calling eglSetDamageRegionKHR twice is
> an error). But in the current implementation the SetDamageRegionCalled
> variable will be set only when we are successful in setting the damage
> with the window system. In my case I always get a false return value (I
> am testing on gnome wayland). Thus it ends up not returning
> EGL_BAD_ACCESS and the test fails.
>
> To avoid this problem in the previous patch I set the return value to
> true and set the damage region to full when version doesn't match. :)
>
> One way to fix this would be to set SetDamageRegionCalled to true
> irrespective of the return value.
>
> Is this okay? I am still trying to see if this would cause
> any problem.
>
Is my assumption correct, that things were working correctly with v2
and it broke with v3?
AFAICT my folding the try_damage_buffer() we introduced a bug, whereby
when old wayland is used we won't set any damage.
Neither the requested rect, nor the fallback "full" damage - we simply
simply fail, thus the predicament.
Personally, I'd get v2 apply the trivial changes suggested.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
