Hi,
On pe, 2015-03-20 at 12:11 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 12:01 PM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On to, 2015-03-19 at 15:07 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 03/19/2015 01:02 PM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >>>> static inline
> >>>> int i915_get_ggtt_vma_pages(struct i915_vma *vma)
> >>>
> >>> Same rant about function signatures as on earlier patch, put all on the
> >>> same line like most of new the code has it.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >>>> struct i915_ggtt_view {
> >>>> enum i915_ggtt_view_type type;
> >>>>
> >>>> struct sg_table *pages;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + union {
> >>>> + struct intel_rotation_info rotation_info;
> >>>> + };
> >>>
> >>> In preparation for the memcmp way of comparing views, I would move this
> >>> be before the variable struct parts (namely sg_table *pages), and also
> >>> wrap it once more so the result would be like this:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>> enum i915_ggtt_view_type type;
> >>>
> >>> union {
> >>> struct {
> >>> struct intel_rotation_info info;
> >>> } rotated;
> >>> struct {
> >>> ...
> >>> } partial;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> // private bits go here, to be wrapped in their struct with view
> >>> // type comparing patches
> >>>
> >>> struct sg_table *pages;
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> That way it's clear which view owns what.
> >>
> >> Hm, rotation info is not considered in comparing views, it is just a
> >> bucket of data passed around between layers. So I suppose private data
> >> under your design. Since there is no private union yet, maybe do this
> >> later?
> >
> > Why not? Isn't a 270 degree rotated view substantially different from a
> > 90 degree rotated view (even when the difference technically is just
> > some bit flip somewhere else).
> >
> > At least I would be pretty upset if I was returned the address for 90
> > degree rotated view when I wanted 270 rotated. If multiple rotated views
> > are not possible, then it is again an implicit thing.
> >
> > There are quite a lot of hardware constraints like this that appear in
> > the code implicitly, which IMHO makes the code hard to follow at times.
> > So I'd try to make it more explicit that the views are not the same,
> > there just can be one rotated view at a time (if that is the case).
>
> 90 and 270 views are indeed the same page layout - same address for
> scanout. And there can only be one such VMA for an object at a time.
>
> But how this mapping needs to look like is determined by more than the
> object itself - framebuffer geometry defines it. The private data in the
> view is used to transfer that meta-data so the GTT core can build the
> appropriate view.
>
Right, I think I understand your viewpoint now. I would still prefer it
to be even more explicit like I915_GGTT_VIEW_Yf_SCANOUT, because what it
really does is rearranges the pages to layout suitable for rotated
scanout, not making the view rotated in itself.
And in that case it would not be in the memcmp range, like it is not
currently.
Regards, Joonas
> That was my argument in fact for not putting the page shuffling bit in
> i915_gem_gtt.c since it is really display engine ownership.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
