> -----Original Message-----
> From: libva-bounces+haihao.xiang=intel....@lists.freedesktop.org
> [mailto:libva-bounces+haihao.xiang=intel....@lists.freedesktop.org] On
> Behalf Of ykzhao
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:34 AM
> To: Gwenole Beauchesne
> Cc: libva@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Libva] [PATCH ] Fix inconsistent surface dimension during
> allocating surface buffer object
>
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 21:59 -0600, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> > Hi Yakui,
> >
> > 2012/9/18 <yakui.z...@intel.com>:
> >
> > > When one surface is created, the height/width is aligned to 16 pixels.
> > > But when trying to allocate the buffer object for it, the width is
> > > aligned to 128 and height is aligned to 32. If the surface is mapped
> > > and accessed before allocating the buffer object, the incorrect
> > > dimension is returned and and the incorrect content is written.
> >
> > What branch are you using? I think that was the case since the
> > beginning, something was probably changed from then, because...
>
> This is for the master branch.
> And this issue doesn't exist on the staging branch as it will try to create
> the
> buffer object when trying to create the surfaces. In such case the dimension
> parameter is updated as expected. But on the master branch the allocation of
> buffer object is deferred for the surfaces. So this issue appears.
We can cherry-pick the fix from the staging branch. If so, we can use the right
width/height
no matter the surface is tiled or not.
>
> >
> > > @@ -506,8 +506,8 @@ i965_CreateSurfaces(VADriverContextP ctx,
> > > obj_surface->orig_width = width;
> > > obj_surface->orig_height = height;
> > >
> > > - obj_surface->width = ALIGN(width, 16);
> > > - obj_surface->height = ALIGN(height, 16);
> > > + obj_surface->width = ALIGN(width, 128);
> > > + obj_surface->height = ALIGN(height, 32);
> > > obj_surface->flags = SURFACE_REFERENCED;
> > > obj_surface->fourcc = 0;
> > > obj_surface->bo = NULL;
> >
> > ... this actually is an SNB/IVB requirement IIRC. Oh, the change was
> > indeed brought by f7eedfab. Could you please create a patch that
> > re-instates f7eedfab hunks for obj_surface->{width,height}? i.e. with
> > the SNB/IVB check, and mentioning this is a regression fix?
>
> Yes. The issue is related with the commit id you mentioned. It is also ok to
> add
> the corresponding hunks for SNB/IVB.
>
> But I prefer to use the 128 alignment for width and 32 alignment for height
> when creating the surfaces, which is the requirement for SNB/IVB and later
> chips. Although it allocates more memory for the chip before SNB, it will
> break
> nothing. Is this OK to you?
>
> thanks
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gwenole.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libva mailing list
> Libva@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
_______________________________________________
Libva mailing list
Libva@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
