Hi Lucas,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:26:22PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 21/01/21 at 12:04 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Lucas, Ryutaroh,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > From: Dom Cobley
> > >
> > > LBM base address is meas
Hi Maxime
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 10:58, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> From: Dom Cobley
>
> LBM base address is measured in units of pixels per cycle.
> That is 4 for 2711 (hvs5) and 2 for 2708.
>
> We are wasting 75% of lbm by indexing without the scaling.
> But we were also using too high a size for
Hi Maxime,
>> This one should fix your issue
>> Feel free to test it and let me know if it's not the case
> I confirm that the patches fix the issue I was seeing.
I also applied the sent patches
[PATCH 1/2] drm/vc4: Correct lbm size and calculation
[PATCH 2/2] drm/vc4: Corre
From: Dom Cobley
LBM base address is measured in units of pixels per cycle.
That is 4 for 2711 (hvs5) and 2 for 2708.
We are wasting 75% of lbm by indexing without the scaling.
But we were also using too high a size for the lbm resulting
in partial corruption (right hand side) of vertically
scal
Hi Lucas, Ryutaroh,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> From: Dom Cobley
>
> LBM base address is measured in units of pixels per cycle.
> That is 4 for 2711 (hvs5) and 2 for 2708.
>
> We are wasting 75% of lbm by indexing without the scaling.
> But we were also usin
Hi Maxime,
On 21/01/21 at 12:04 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Lucas, Ryutaroh,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > From: Dom Cobley
> >
> > LBM base address is measured in units of pixels per cycle.
> > That is 4 for 2711 (hvs5) and 2 for 2708.
> >
> > We
