On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:18:41PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 14/10/15 17:29, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote: > >From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > > >In case we have multiple different rotated views into the same object, > >each one may need its own vma due to being of different sizes. So don't > >treat all rotated views as equal. > > > >Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > >--- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h > >b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h > >index caa182f..68de734 100644 > >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h > >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h > >@@ -553,6 +553,8 @@ i915_ggtt_view_equal(const struct i915_ggtt_view *a, > > > > if (a->type != b->type) > > return false; > >+ if (a->type == I915_GGTT_VIEW_ROTATED) > >+ return !memcmp(&a->rotated, &b->rotated, sizeof(a->rotated)); > > if (a->type == I915_GGTT_VIEW_PARTIAL) > > return !memcmp(&a->partial, &b->partial, sizeof(a->partial)); > > return true; > > This is where anonymous union causes problems since you have to build a > switch statement before memcmp while the original goal was for memcmp to > elegantly avoid that.
Yup, mentioned the same on irc. I much prefer we do the memcmp on type != NORMAL, to avoid mistakes when adding more views in the future. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
