Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:07:36PM +, Runyan, Arthur J wrote: From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com] On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:19:19PM +, Runyan, Arthur J wrote: The statement is correct - the X offset must always be even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees. Hmm. Can you elaborate a bit? I'm curious where this limitation comes from. Ah, I get what you are asking now. They don't both have to be even when roated. The text should say the X offset must be even for YUV422+NV12 ***when not rotated 90/270***, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees. I'll fix that text. Excellent. Thanks for confirming my hunch :) -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com] On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:19:19PM +, Runyan, Arthur J wrote: The statement is correct - the X offset must always be even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees. Hmm. Can you elaborate a bit? I'm curious where this limitation comes from. Ah, I get what you are asking now. They don't both have to be even when roated. The text should say the X offset must be even for YUV422+NV12 ***when not rotated 90/270***, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees. I'll fix that text. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:19:19PM +, Runyan, Arthur J wrote:
The statement is correct - the X offset must always be even for
YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees.
Hmm. Can you elaborate a bit? I'm curious where this limitation comes
from.
From: Konduru, Chandra
From: Runyan, Arthur J
I'll take a look.
Art, Any update to close on this?
[snip]
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct
drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+src-y1 = ~0x1;
+src-y2 = ~0x1;
+}
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation
not only for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have
missed when 90/270 enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels
appear in
the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the hardware Y
offset
comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must
always be
even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270
degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get updated when 90/270
rotation
was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
-Original Message-
From: Runyan, Arthur J
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Konduru, Chandra; Ville Syrjälä
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville; Jindal,
Sonika
Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12
format.
The statement is correct - the X offset must always be even for YUV422+NV12,
and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees.
Thanks Art.
Then below code to take care evenness for both X and Y offsets when YUV 90/270
is ok.
Ville, with this, can you give R-b tag on the ones you reviewed?
From: Konduru, Chandra
From: Runyan, Arthur J
I'll take a look.
Art, Any update to close on this?
[snip]
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct
drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+src-y1 = ~0x1;
+src-y2 = ~0x1;
+}
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation
not only for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have
missed when 90/270 enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels
appear in
the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the hardware Y
offset
comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must
always
be
even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270
degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get updated when 90/270
rotation
was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
The statement is correct - the X offset must always be even for YUV422+NV12,
and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270 degrees.
From: Konduru, Chandra
From: Runyan, Arthur J
I'll take a look.
Art, Any update to close on this?
[snip]
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct
drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation
not only for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have
missed when 90/270 enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels appear
in
the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the hardware Y
offset
comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must always
be
even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270
degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get updated when 90/270
rotation
was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
From: Runyan, Arthur J
I'll take a look.
Art, Any update to close on this?
[snip]
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct
drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation
not only for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have
missed when 90/270 enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels appear in
the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the hardware Y offset
comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must always
be
even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when rotated 90/270
degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get updated when 90/270
rotation
was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
I'll take a look.
-Original Message-
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:44 AM
To: Konduru, Chandra
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville; Jindal,
Sonika; Runyan, Arthur J
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12
format.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:32:07PM +, Konduru, Chandra wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 5:03 AM
To: Konduru, Chandra
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12
format.
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:47PM -0700, Chandra Konduru wrote:
Adding NV12 90/270 rotation support for primary and sprite planes.
Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru chandra.kond...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 23 ---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 32
+--
-
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index c385a3b..77d7f69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -3105,7 +3105,8 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
int src_x = 0, src_y = 0, src_w = 0, src_h = 0;
int dst_x = 0, dst_y = 0, dst_w = 0, dst_h = 0;
int scaler_id = -1;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_state = to_intel_plane_state(plane-state);
@@ -3163,12 +3164,16 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - src_h;
y_offset = x;
plane_size = (src_w - 1) 16 | (src_h - 1);
- /*
- * TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
- * be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
- * rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
- * Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
- */
+
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb-
pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist =
intel_plane_obj_offset(to_intel_plane(plane), obj, 1) -
+ surf_addr;
+ aux_x_offset = aux_stride * uv_tile_height - y / 2 - fb-
height / 2;
+ aux_y_offset = x / 2;
+ }
} else {
stride = fb-pitches[0] / stride_div;
x_offset = x;
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation not only
for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have missed when 90/270
enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels
appear in the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the
hardware Y offset comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must
always be even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when
rotated 90/270 degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get
updated when 90/270 rotation was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:32:07PM +, Konduru, Chandra wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 5:03 AM
To: Konduru, Chandra
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12
format.
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:47PM -0700, Chandra Konduru wrote:
Adding NV12 90/270 rotation support for primary and sprite planes.
Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru chandra.kond...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 23 ---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 32
+--
-
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index c385a3b..77d7f69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -3105,7 +3105,8 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
int src_x = 0, src_y = 0, src_w = 0, src_h = 0;
int dst_x = 0, dst_y = 0, dst_w = 0, dst_h = 0;
int scaler_id = -1;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_state = to_intel_plane_state(plane-state);
@@ -3163,12 +3164,16 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - src_h;
y_offset = x;
plane_size = (src_w - 1) 16 | (src_h - 1);
- /*
- * TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
- * be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
- * rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
- * Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
- */
+
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb-
pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist =
intel_plane_obj_offset(to_intel_plane(plane), obj, 1) -
+ surf_addr;
+ aux_x_offset = aux_stride * uv_tile_height - y / 2 - fb-
height / 2;
+ aux_y_offset = x / 2;
+ }
} else {
stride = fb-pitches[0] / stride_div;
x_offset = x;
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation not only
for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have missed when 90/270
enabled for packed YUV formats.
The src coordinates are always in the fb orientation, so macropixels
appear in the src.x direction only. And when we do 90/270 rotation the
hardware Y offset comes from src.x coordinates.
The spec does seem a bit confused though; It claims the X offset must
always be even for YUV422+NV12, and the Y offset must be even when
rotated 90/270 degrees. I suspect the X offset text just didn't get
updated when 90/270 rotation was added.
Art, can you confirm?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:47PM -0700, Chandra Konduru wrote:
Adding NV12 90/270 rotation support for primary and sprite planes.
Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru chandra.kond...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 23 ---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 32 +---
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index c385a3b..77d7f69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -3105,7 +3105,8 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
int src_x = 0, src_y = 0, src_w = 0, src_h = 0;
int dst_x = 0, dst_y = 0, dst_w = 0, dst_h = 0;
int scaler_id = -1;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_state = to_intel_plane_state(plane-state);
@@ -3163,12 +3164,16 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - src_h;
y_offset = x;
plane_size = (src_w - 1) 16 | (src_h - 1);
- /*
- * TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
- * be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
- * rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
- * Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
- */
+
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev,
fb-pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist =
intel_plane_obj_offset(to_intel_plane(plane), obj, 1) -
+ surf_addr;
+ aux_x_offset = aux_stride * uv_tile_height - y / 2 -
fb-height / 2;
+ aux_y_offset = x / 2;
+ }
} else {
stride = fb-pitches[0] / stride_div;
x_offset = x;
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
}
if (INTEL_INFO(dev)-gen = 9) {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
index e23fe8e..d4ce7eb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
@@ -190,7 +190,8 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane, struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
int x_offset, y_offset;
struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state = to_intel_crtc(crtc)-config;
int scaler_id;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_ctl = PLANE_CTL_ENABLE |
@@ -239,12 +240,14 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane, struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - (src_h + 1);
y_offset = x;
- /*
- * TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
- * be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
- * rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
- * Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
- */
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev,
fb-pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist = intel_plane_obj_offset(intel_plane, obj, 1)
- surf_addr;
+ aux_x_offset = aux_stride * uv_tile_height - y / 2 -
fb-height / 2;
+ aux_y_offset = x / 2;
+ }
} else {
stride = fb-pitches[0] / stride_div;
plane_size = (src_h 16) | src_w;
@@ -909,6 +912,21 @@ intel_check_sprite_plane(struct drm_plane *plane,
if (crtc_w == 0)
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12 format.
-Original Message-
From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 5:03 AM
To: Konduru, Chandra
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Add 90/270 rotation for NV12
format.
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:47PM -0700, Chandra Konduru wrote:
Adding NV12 90/270 rotation support for primary and sprite planes.
Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru chandra.kond...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 23 ---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 32 +--
-
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index c385a3b..77d7f69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -3105,7 +3105,8 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
int src_x = 0, src_y = 0, src_w = 0, src_h = 0;
int dst_x = 0, dst_y = 0, dst_w = 0, dst_h = 0;
int scaler_id = -1;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_state = to_intel_plane_state(plane-state);
@@ -3163,12 +3164,16 @@ static void skylake_update_primary_plane(struct
drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - src_h;
y_offset = x;
plane_size = (src_w - 1) 16 | (src_h - 1);
- /*
-* TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
-* be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
-* rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
-* Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
-*/
+
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb-
pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist =
intel_plane_obj_offset(to_intel_plane(plane), obj, 1) -
+ surf_addr;
+ aux_x_offset = aux_stride * uv_tile_height - y / 2 - fb-
height / 2;
+ aux_y_offset = x / 2;
+ }
} else {
stride = fb-pitches[0] / stride_div;
x_offset = x;
@@ -13144,6 +13149,10 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane
*plane,
if (fb format_is_yuv(fb-pixel_format)) {
src-x1 = ~0x1;
src-x2 = ~0x1;
+ if (intel_rotation_90_or_270(state-base.rotation)) {
+ src-y1 = ~0x1;
+ src-y2 = ~0x1;
+ }
This feels fishy. Why do we need to make the Y coordinates even? The
reson for making the X coordinates even is to make them macropixel
aligned, but there are no macropixels in the Y direction so this
doesn't make much sense to me.
Hi Ville,
Per skl spec, it is expecting even lines aligned with 90/270 rotation not only
for NV12 but also for 422 formats. Perhaps we might have missed when 90/270
enabled for packed YUV formats.
}
if (INTEL_INFO(dev)-gen = 9) {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
index e23fe8e..d4ce7eb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
@@ -190,7 +190,8 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane,
struct drm_crtc *crtc,
int x_offset, y_offset;
struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state = to_intel_crtc(crtc)-config;
int scaler_id;
- u32 aux_dist = 0, aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
+ unsigned long aux_dist = 0;
+ u32 aux_x_offset = 0, aux_y_offset = 0, aux_stride = 0;
u32 tile_row_adjustment = 0;
plane_ctl = PLANE_CTL_ENABLE |
@@ -239,12 +240,14 @@ skl_update_plane(struct drm_plane *drm_plane,
struct drm_crtc *crtc,
x_offset = stride * tile_height - y - (src_h + 1);
y_offset = x;
- /*
-* TBD: For NV12 90/270 rotation, Y and UV subplanes should
-* be treated as separate surfaces and GTT remapping for
-* rotation should be done separately for each subplane.
-* Enable support once seperate remappings are available.
-*/
+ if (fb-pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
+ u32 uv_tile_height = intel_tile_height(dev, fb-
pixel_format,
+ fb-modifier[0], 1);
+ aux_stride = DIV_ROUND_UP(fb-height / 2,
uv_tile_height);
+ aux_dist
