From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] drm/i915: Mark the cursor and the overlay as being part of the display planes Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 19:28:35 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1302771827-26112-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <1302771827-26112-8-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19CE9E709 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 11:28:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Keith Packard , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:09:53 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:03:41 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -5360,7 +5360,7 @@ static int intel_crtc_cursor_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > > goto fail_locked; > > } > > > > - ret = i915_gem_object_set_to_gtt_domain(obj, 0); > > + ret = i915_gem_object_set_to_display_plane(obj, NULL); > > if (ret) { > > DRM_ERROR("failed to move cursor bo into the GTT\n"); > > goto fail_unpin; > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > index a670c00..e0903c5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > @@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ static int intel_overlay_do_put_image(struct intel_overlay *overlay, > > if (ret != 0) > > return ret; > > > > - ret = i915_gem_object_set_to_gtt_domain(new_bo, 0); > > + ret = i915_gem_object_set_to_display_plane(new_bo, NULL); > > set_to_display_plane has a comment stating that it is always called from > a non - interruptible context and uses a non-interruptible flush wait as > a result. > > I think we would want these new code paths to allow for interrupting the > operation? The comment is very stale, I believe I remove it in one of the patches. There were some fun bugs when rebinding the scanout under an uninterruptible modeswitch that convinced me that we had a choice between threading the interruptible flag through the entire unbind callchain, or to simply mark the device as uninterruptible for the duration. The code now does the latter. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre