On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:42:44AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:28:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:59:20PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > If it wasn't never enabled by kernel parameter or platform default > > > > > we can avoid reading registers so many times in vain > > > > > > > > Nak. > > > > > > Well I've merged this for now to reduce fbc impact. > > > > > > > Uhm, unfortunatelly I'm afraid Chris was right. > > Paulo also nacked it. Because it just helps when it was explicitly > disabled > > by setting i915.enable_fbc=0 while the default is -1. > > > > I though about returning on <= 0, but Paulo is afraid that when enabling > > back for some platform people would forget to fix this part here and I > > agree. > > Well I guess I should have read mails before pushing out a new -next ;-) > So this is now baked in. Should I revert or can we just fix up on top? > No problem, I can fix this on top. But what do you prefer: 1. <=0 return and changing parameter permission from 600 to 400 2. dev_priv->fbc_enabled 3. or check if fbc_no_reason was ever set? Although I don't like the fbc_no_reason and would like to clean it up in the future. But anyway, any option here is temporary until a proper rework for cleanup and real fix. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
