Em Ter, 2015-11-10 às 11:22 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu: > Op 04-11-15 om 20:10 schreef Paulo Zanoni: > > In function find_compression_threshold() we try to over-allocate > > CFB > > space in order to reudce reallocations and fragmentation, and we're > > not considering that at the CFB size check. Consider it. > > > > There is also a longer-term plan to kill > > dev_priv->fbc.uncompressed_size, but this will come later. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c > > index dee99c9..e99aacc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c > > @@ -719,7 +719,8 @@ static int intel_fbc_setup_cfb(struct > > intel_crtc *crtc) > > size = intel_fbc_calculate_cfb_size(crtc); > > cpp = drm_format_plane_cpp(fb->pixel_format, 0); > > > > - if (size <= dev_priv->fbc.uncompressed_size) > > + if (dev_priv->fbc.compressed_fb.allocated && > > + size <= dev_priv->fbc.compressed_fb.size * dev_priv- > > >fbc.threshold) > > return 0; > > > > /* Release any current block */ > Should i8xx_fbc_enable be changed too then?
As far as I understand, no. We're just reserving a bigger buffer in case we need it later, but the size used by the hardware is still the same. But I'm not 100% sure the i8xx code is actually correct since I didn't dig deep into the ancient scrolls. By not touching i8xx we're also avoiding a possible new regression. > > Rest of the patches look ok, applied those. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
