On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:39:05AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-07-01 17:44 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson :
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:15:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > Looks much cleaner with the split.
> >
> >> +void intel_fbc_cleanup_cfb(struct drm_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + stru
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:39:05AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-07-01 17:44 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson :
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:15:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > Looks much cleaner with the split.
> >
> >> +void intel_fbc_cleanup_cfb(struct drm_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + stru
2015-07-01 17:44 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson :
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:15:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>
> Looks much cleaner with the split.
>
>> +void intel_fbc_cleanup_cfb(struct drm_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> +
>> + if (dev_priv->
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:15:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
Looks much cleaner with the split.
> +void intel_fbc_cleanup_cfb(struct drm_device *dev)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> +
> + if (dev_priv->fbc.uncompressed_size == 0)
> + return;
>
From: Paulo Zanoni
With the abstractions created by the last patch, we can move this code
and the only thing inside intel_fbc.c that knows about dev_priv->mm is
the code that reads stolen_base.
We also had to move a call to i915_gem_stolen_cleanup_compression()
- now called intel_fbc_cleanup_cfb
