[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: Add rotation_property to mode_config and creating it

[Jindal, Sonika]

On 7/31/2014 9:39 AM, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>
>
> On 7/29/2014 4:00 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:40:29PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:47:22PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 06:29:41PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:43:37PM +0530, sonika.jindal at intel.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal at intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c |    3 ++-
>>>>>>    include/drm/drm_crtc.h     |    1 +
>>>>>>    2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>>>>>> index 787631e..49c0747 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>>>>>> @@ -1299,7 +1299,8 @@ static int drm_mode_create_standard_plane_properties(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>>>>    					"type", drm_plane_type_enum_list,
>>>>>>    					ARRAY_SIZE(drm_plane_type_enum_list));
>>>>>>    	dev->mode_config.plane_type_property = type;
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> +	dev->mode_config.rotation_property = drm_mode_create_rotation_property(dev,
>>>>>> +			BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) | BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180));
>>>>>
>>>>> This might not make sense for other (!i915) hardware. And that's the
>>>>> reason why I had the driver create the property in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Daniel was thinking that we might want to expose all the bits
>>>>> regardless of what the hardware supports, but I don't like that idea.
>>>>> There are other properties (eg. alpha blending, csc stuff, etc.) that
>>>>> have the same problem of hardware supporting only a (potentially small)
>>>>> subset of the possible values. I'd rather we didn't make life harder
>>>>> for userspace when the kernel can already report that certain values
>>>>> will never work.
>>>>
>>>> Well I'd like the property to be in some generic place so that fbcon can
>>>> unroate and that with the atomic stuff we can have rotation support in the
>>>> core structures. Which should help with argument checking.
>>>>
>>>> But for rotation I don't think we should set it up in generic code, but in
>>>> i915. So the place where we keep it would be generic, the values would be
>>>> the sames, but the allowed set would differ depending upon platform or
>>>> driver.
>>>
>>> That would still fail if all the planes on the same device don't support
>>> the same rotation flags. Eg. on i915 we would have this problem if we
>>> exposed the old video overlay as a drm plane. And it wouldn't be the
>>> first piece of hardware where I've seen this kind of thing.
>>
>> Problem is still that I'd like to have a somewhat generic internal
>> representation available. We could punt this to atomic though by adding a
>> rotation field to the drm_plane_state structure. Which is more-or-less my
>> plan, but wouldn't work with Rob's approach.
>>
>> Or we keep the property link only in drm_plane (and give drivers the
>> freedom to set up the underlying enum however they want to), but I'm not
>> sure whether our interfaces can cope with that.
>> -Daniel
>>
> Daniel, Ville
>
> So what is the suggestion for this property? Should I be moving it to
> somewhere else?
>
> -Sonika
Hi Daniel/Ville,

Please let me know if I need to move this property somewhere else.

Thanks,
Sonika
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>