On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
> into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
> fit into the mappable region, we a
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:29:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:50:22PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > The existing ABI says that sc
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:49:19AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:29:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:50:22PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:29:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:50:22PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > + if (obj->map_and_fenc
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:50:22PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> > > so that legacy clients
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
shuang...@intel.com)
Task id: 6006
-Summary-
Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied
PNV -1 272/272
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:39:06PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> > so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
> > into the scanout
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:34:09PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:10:13PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
> > > should we skip put_fence in overlay_do_put_image ?
> >
> > Ah interesting point you raise there. That i
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> > so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
> > into the scanout
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
> into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
> fit into the m
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:40AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
> so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
> into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
> fit into the m
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:10:13PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
> > should we skip put_fence in overlay_do_put_image ?
>
> Ah interesting point you raise there. That is buggy code fullstop.
> We should not be call put_fence if pin_to_displa
On Thursday 19 March 2015 06:40 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
should we skip put_fence in overlay_do_put_image ?
Ah interesting point you raise there. That is buggy code fullstop.
We should not be call put_fence if pin_to_display_plane pins
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
> should we skip put_fence in overlay_do_put_image ?
Ah interesting point you raise there. That is buggy code fullstop.
We should not be call put_fence if pin_to_display_plane pins the fence.
Techinically the overlay could use a fence, the
On Thursday 19 March 2015 04:59 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
fit into the mappable re
The existing ABI says that scanouts are pinned into the mappable region
so that legacy clients (e.g. old Xorg or plymouthd) can write directly
into the scanout through a GTT mapping. However if the surface does not
fit into the mappable region, we are better off just trying to fit it
anywhere and h
16 matches
Mail list logo
