On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Chandra Konduru <[email protected]> wrote: > + /* > + * check for rect size: > + * min sizes in case of scaling involved > + * max sizes in all cases > + */ > + if ((need_scaling && > + (src_w < scaler->min_src_w || src_h < scaler->min_src_h || > + dst_w < scaler->min_dst_w || dst_h < scaler->min_dst_h)) || > + > + src_w > scaler->max_src_w || src_h > scaler->max_src_h || > + dst_w > scaler->max_dst_w || dst_h > scaler->max_dst_h) {
Ok let's hope I've traced all the min/max stuff in your patches correctly. It looks like we only ever initialized them to fixed values, never changed them and only use them here. Spreading out the values like that without having a real need for this flexibility makes review really hard imo. What about instead adding a skl_check_scale_limits functions which does all these checks here and uses hardcoded values? That way you could move the commits about the various values (e.g. only 34% scaling and the other easier-to-understand limits) right next to the code that checks these limits? There's also some confusion with the overly generic (imo) old sprite code and its scaling limit checks. Imo we can look at that later on. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
