[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: skl_update_scaler() wants a rotation bitmask instead of bit number

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:03:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:21:40PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:15:00PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:26PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pass BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0) instead of DRM_ROTATE_0 to skl_update_scaler().
> > > > > The former is a mask, the latter just the bit number.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fortunately the only thing skl_update_scaler() does with the rotation
> > > > > is check if it's 90/270 degrees or not, and so in this case it would
> > > > > still do the right thing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru at intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Ping, anyone care to r-b this one?
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Looks like this bug has been present since scalers were first added in
> > > 6156a45602f9 ("drm/i915: skylake primary plane scaling using shared scalers")
> > 
> > Pushed to dinq an appropriate Fixes: comment added. Thanks for the review.
> 
> Do we have an igt for this? If not need to capture it and make it
> something we must fixe before more scaler stuff lands.

There's no change in behavior from this fix, so there's nothing to test.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC