Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-06 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:02:51 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:12:19 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: Indeed, I started by setting them to zero in the caller. Decided that there was some precedent to use the guard_size as the minimum

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-06 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:36:50 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:59:37 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: I'd prefer to keep the mucking around with intel_watermak_params in the one spot. How about: My concern is that g4x_compute_wm0 is

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-06 Thread Keith Packard
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:02:22 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: Looks like we can now indeed merge g4x_compute_wm0 and ironlake_compute_wm0 and ignore the off-values for gen5+. They do seem surprisingly similar at this point... So fix the use of uninitialised values for

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-05 Thread Chris Wilson
We were using uninitialised watermarks values for disabled pipes which were combined into a single WM register and so corrupting the values for the enabled pipe and upsetting the display hardware. Reported-by: Riccardo Magliocchetti riccardo.magliocche...@gmail.com Bugzilla:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-05 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:56:37 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:24:14 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_plane(dev, plane); - if (crtc-fb == NULL || !crtc-enabled) + if (crtc-fb == NULL ||

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for disabled pipes

2011-04-05 Thread Keith Packard
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:12:19 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: Indeed, I started by setting them to zero in the caller. Decided that there was some precedent to use the guard_size as the minimum value for unused planes (and so perhaps the unused planes on the unused pipes)