> > +static bool skl_need_scaling(int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h,
> > +   unsigned int rotation, uint32_t pixel_format)
> > +{
> > +   /* need a scaler when sizes doesn't match */
> > +   if (src_w != dst_w || src_h != dst_h)
> > +           return true;
> > +
> > +   /* in case of 90/270 rotation, check src width with dst height and so */
> > +   if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(rotation) &&
> > +                   (src_h != dst_w || src_w != dst_h))
> > +           return true;
> > +
> > +   /* need a scaler for nv12 */
> > +   if (pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12)
> > +           return true;
> > +
> > +   return false;
> > +}
> 
> That still looks wrong to me. Let me repeat how I think it should look:
> 
> {
>       if (format == NV12)
>               return true;
> 
>       if (90_or_270())
>               return src_w != dst_h || src_h != dst_w;
>       else
>               return src_w != dst_w || src_h != dst_h;
> }
> 
> Otherwise looks good.
Sending updated patch shortly.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to