[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] sna: Partly revert "sna: Compilation fixes for stable distros"

[Sedat Dilek]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:39:32PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> >> Fixes a problem having no mouse cursor in the LightDM login-screen
>> >> on Ubuntu/precise (see [1]).
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-June/068096.html
>> >>
>> >> Fixes: 7d30ccea214b ("sna: Compilation fixes for stable distros")
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  src/sna/kgem.c | 3 +--
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/src/sna/kgem.c b/src/sna/kgem.c
>> >> index de604b0f3d77..720644b26750 100644
>> >> --- a/src/sna/kgem.c
>> >> +++ b/src/sna/kgem.c
>> >> @@ -140,7 +140,6 @@ search_snoop_cache(struct kgem *kgem, unsigned int num_pages, unsigned flags);
>> >>  #define LOCAL_I915_PARAM_HAS_WT                      27
>> >>  #define LOCAL_I915_PARAM_MMAP_VERSION                30
>> >>
>> >> -#define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BLT                  (2<<0)
>> >>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_IS_PINNED            (1<<10)
>> >>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC             (1<<11)
>> >>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT           (1<<12)
>> >> @@ -1400,7 +1399,7 @@ static bool test_can_blt_y(struct kgem *kgem)
>> >>               memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf));
>> >>               execbuf.buffers_ptr = (uintptr_t)&object;
>> >>               execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
>> >> -             execbuf.flags = LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BLT;
>> >> +             execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BLT;
>> >
>> > Again, I am confused. The effect is instead of executing on BLT we ended
>> > up on BSD. Which is fine for the purposes of this test and the test did
>> > succeed.
>> >
>> > What's the result of this function after your patch? It should still be
>> > true. So I think we are looking at a funky underlying bug here...
>> >
>>
>> How can I test that or check?
>
> diff --git a/src/sna/kgem.c b/src/sna/kgem.c
> index 2058364..66f0087 100644
> --- a/src/sna/kgem.c
> +++ b/src/sna/kgem.c
> @@ -1753,6 +1753,9 @@ no_context_switch(struct kgem *kgem, int new_mode)
>         (void)new_mode;
>  }
>
> +#undef DBG
> +#define DBG(x) ErrorF x
> +
>  void kgem_init(struct kgem *kgem, int fd, struct pci_device *dev, unsigned gen)
>  {
>         struct drm_i915_gem_get_aperture aperture;
> @@ -2054,6 +2057,9 @@ void kgem_init(struct kgem *kgem, int fd, struct pci_device *dev, unsigned gen)
>         kgem_init_swizzling(kgem);
>  }
>
> +#undef DBG
> +#define DBG(x)
> +
>
> Then look for "kgem_init: can blit to Y-tiled surfaces?"
>

Got some other tuff to do this weekend and really have less time.
If it is that important to you, please let me know, then I will test.

- sed@ -