On 4/20/2018 7:42 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 07:01:47PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
From: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nauti...@intel.com>
This patch adds helper functions for determining if aspect-ratio is
expected in user-mode and for allowing/disallowing the aspect-ratio,
if its not expected.
Signed-off-by: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nauti...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/drm/drm_modes.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 51 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
index c395a24..d6133e8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
@@ -1759,3 +1759,50 @@ bool drm_mode_is_420(const struct drm_display_info
*display,
drm_mode_is_420_also(display, mode);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mode_is_420);
+
+/**
+ * drm_mode_aspect_ratio_allowed - checks if the aspect-ratio information
+ * is expected from the user-mode.
+ *
+ * If the user has set aspect-ratio cap, then the flag of the user-mode is
+ * allowed to contain aspect-ratio value.
+ * If the user does not set aspect-ratio cap, then the only value allowed in
the
+ * flags bits is aspect-ratio NONE.
+ *
+ * @file_priv: file private structure to get the user capabilities
+ * @umode: drm_mode_modeinfo struct, whose flag carry the aspect ratio
+ * information.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * true if the aspect-ratio info is allowed in the user-mode flags.
+ * false, otherwise.
+ */
+bool
+drm_mode_aspect_ratio_allowed(const struct drm_file *file_priv,
+ struct drm_mode_modeinfo *umode)
+{
+ return file_priv->aspect_ratio_allowed || (umode->flags &
+ DRM_MODE_FLAG_PIC_AR_MASK) == DRM_MODE_FLAG_PIC_AR_NONE;
Odd line split here. Makes this a bit hard to read.
I would split after the ||
Agreed. I wasn't sure how to let it have better readability and less
than 80 char length
at the same time. Will fix this.
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mode_aspect_ratio_allowed);
Do we actually need to export these? I don't think so.
But I might be wrong. It's a bit hard to see with the way
you split this patch with the actual users in a different patch.
These helper functions are used in drm_mode_atomic.c, drm_mode_crtc.c,
and drm_mode_get_connector.c
The patches are split as to have modes-set handling separate and the
exposing of connector separate.
Do you suggest this patch to be merged with the patch for handling
aspect-ratio in modeset?
+
+/**
+ * drm_mode_filter_aspect_ratio_flags - filters the aspect-ratio bits in the
+ * user-mode flags.
+ *
+ * Checks if the aspect-ratio information is allowed. Resets the aspect-ratio
+ * bits in the user-mode flags, if aspect-ratio info is not allowed.
+ *
+ * @file_priv: file private structure to get the user capabilities.
+ * @umode: drm_mode_modeinfo struct, whose flags' aspect-ratio bits needs to
+ * be filtered.
+ *
+ */
+void
+drm_mode_filter_aspect_ratio_flags(const struct drm_file *file_priv,
+ struct drm_mode_modeinfo *umode)
+{
+ if (!drm_mode_aspect_ratio_allowed(file_priv, umode))
+ umode->flags &= ~DRM_MODE_FLAG_PIC_AR_MASK;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mode_filter_aspect_ratio_flags);
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_modes.h b/include/drm/drm_modes.h
index 2f78b7e..e0b060d 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_modes.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_modes.h
@@ -461,6 +461,10 @@ bool drm_mode_is_420_also(const struct drm_display_info
*display,
const struct drm_display_mode *mode);
bool drm_mode_is_420(const struct drm_display_info *display,
const struct drm_display_mode *mode);
+bool drm_mode_aspect_ratio_allowed(const struct drm_file *file_priv,
+ struct drm_mode_modeinfo *umode);
+void drm_mode_filter_aspect_ratio_flags(const struct drm_file *file_priv,
+ struct drm_mode_modeinfo *umode);
struct drm_display_mode *drm_cvt_mode(struct drm_device *dev,
int hdisplay, int vdisplay, int vrefresh,
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
