| Message ID | 1405426417-18616-1-git-send-email-sonika.jindal@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:43:37PM +0530, sonika.jindal@intel.com wrote: > From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > > Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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. > return 0; > } > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > index ce6df4a..5545dd3 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > @@ -819,6 +819,7 @@ struct drm_mode_config { > struct drm_property *dpms_property; > struct drm_property *path_property; > struct drm_property *plane_type_property; > + struct drm_property *rotation_property; > > /* DVI-I properties */ > struct drm_property *dvi_i_subconnector_property; > -- > 1.7.10.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
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@intel.com wrote: > > From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > > > v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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. -Daniel > > > return 0; > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > > index ce6df4a..5545dd3 100644 > > --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > > @@ -819,6 +819,7 @@ struct drm_mode_config { > > struct drm_property *dpms_property; > > struct drm_property *path_property; > > struct drm_property *plane_type_property; > > + struct drm_property *rotation_property; > > > > /* DVI-I properties */ > > struct drm_property *dvi_i_subconnector_property; > > -- > > 1.7.10.4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
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@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > > > > > v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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.
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@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > > > > > > > > v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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
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@intel.com wrote: >>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> >>>>> >>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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
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@intel.com wrote: >>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:59:23PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: > > > 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@intel.com wrote: > >>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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. Well we at least need to move the crationg of the property to the driver. I guess we could leave the property itself in place in mode_config so that fbdev can get at it easily. If we come across a real need for separate per-plane rotation properties we can always move it to drm_plane later.
On 8/4/2014 5:24 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:59:23PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote: >> >> >> 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@intel.com wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v2: Adding creation of rotation_property here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@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. > > Well we at least need to move the crationg of the property to the > driver. I guess we could leave the property itself in place in > mode_config so that fbdev can get at it easily. If we come across > a real need for separate per-plane rotation properties we can always > move it to drm_plane later. > Ok, I will move it back to plane_create function.
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)); return 0; } diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h index ce6df4a..5545dd3 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h @@ -819,6 +819,7 @@ struct drm_mode_config { struct drm_property *dpms_property; struct drm_property *path_property; struct drm_property *plane_type_property; + struct drm_property *rotation_property; /* DVI-I properties */ struct drm_property *dvi_i_subconnector_property;