Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754617AbdLGPca (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:32:30 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:45615 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779AbdLGPc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:32:28 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,373,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="9927327" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:32:24 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: Alex Tu Cc: David Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo Vivi Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Increase max texture to 16k for gen9+ Message-ID: <20171207153224.GD10981@intel.com> References: <20171207092600.3727-1-alex.tu@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20171207092600.3727-1-alex.tu@canonical.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2055 Lines: 58 On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:26:00PM +0800, Alex Tu wrote: > Rrefer to another patch [1] on mesa to extend width/height to 16384. > For issue : > - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102508 > - LP: #1714178 Triple monitor display failed with Dell Dock (HiDPI) > > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/124918/ > > Signed-off-by: Alex Tu > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index 47a2f6acee50..556fa57b18b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -13905,7 +13905,7 @@ u32 intel_fb_pitch_limit(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > /* "The stride in bytes must not exceed the of the size of 8K > * pixels and 32K bytes." The spec queote clearly says the patch is wrong. Either that or the spec quote is outdated. > */ > - return min(8192 * cpp, 32768); > + return min(16384 * cpp, 65536); > } else if (gen >= 5 && !HAS_GMCH_DISPLAY(dev_priv)) { > return 32*1024; > } else if (gen >= 4) { > @@ -14604,8 +14604,8 @@ int intel_modeset_init(struct drm_device *dev) > dev->mode_config.max_width = 4096; > dev->mode_config.max_height = 4096; > } else { > - dev->mode_config.max_width = 8192; > - dev->mode_config.max_height = 8192; > + dev->mode_config.max_width = 16384; > + dev->mode_config.max_height = 16384; Even if this would be correct (which it's not for most platforms at least, not quite sure about the very latest hardware), anyone doing this should at least do a cursory check of the relevant math in the driver to make seure we don't end up with integer overflows. > } > > if (IS_I845G(dev_priv) || IS_I865G(dev_priv)) { > -- > 2.11.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Ville Syrj?l? Intel OTC