On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ma, 2016-07-25 at 18:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > -static int intel_overlay_do_wait_request(struct intel_overlay *overlay,
> > +static void intel_overlay_submit_request(struct intel_overlay *overlay,
> > struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
> > - void (*tail)(struct intel_overlay *))
> > + void (*retire)(struct i915_gem_active
> > *,
> > + struct
> > drm_i915_gem_request *))
>
> Ugh, not such a beauty. We do not do callback typedefs?
Not often that we actually pass around function pointers.
> > -static void intel_overlay_release_old_vid_tail(struct intel_overlay
> > *overlay)
> > +static void intel_overlay_release_old_vid_tail(struct i915_gem_active
> > *active,
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> > {
> > + struct intel_overlay *overlay =
> > + container_of(active, typeof(*overlay), last_flip);
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = overlay->old_vid_bo;
> >
> > + i915_gem_track_fb(obj, NULL,
> > + INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_OVERLAY(overlay->crtc->pipe));
> > +
>
> Previously this call was after the below calls and old_vid_bo was
> always NULL, does this fix a bug?
Yes.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
and a recent one.
> > i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(obj);
> > i915_gem_object_put(obj);
> >
> > overlay->old_vid_bo = NULL;
> > }
> >
> >
> > /* Wait for pending overlay flip and release old frame.
> > @@ -452,13 +450,9 @@ static int intel_overlay_release_old_vid(struct
> > intel_overlay *overlay)
> >
> > intel_overlay_release_old_vid_tail);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > - }
> > + } else
> > + intel_overlay_release_old_vid_tail(&overlay->last_flip, NULL);
>
> Why you added else?
Habit?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
