Nouveau - Feb 2021 - [PATCH 2/3] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Report max cursor size to userspace

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:53 AM Alex Riesen
<alexander.riesen at cetitec.com> wrote:
>
> Ilia Mirkin, Wed, Feb 24, 2021 17:48:39 +0100:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:35 AM Alex Riesen <alexander.riesen at
cetitec.com> wrote:
> > > Ilia Mirkin, Wed, Feb 24, 2021 16:10:57 +0100:
> > > > The fact that you're getting lines with modetest means
there's
> > > > something wrong with 256x256. What if you do 128x128 -- does
that work
> > > > OK?
> > >
> > > Yes. Unfortunately in both cases.
> >
> > Just to be crystal clear -- are you saying that 128x128 works or does
> > not work? (You said "yes", which would imply it works OK,
but then you
> > said both cases, which would imply doesn't work since 256x256
doesn't
> > work?)
>
> Modetest with 128x128 cursor works. Without damage to the cursor: modetest
> shows normal cursor in vanilla v5.11. Modetest also shows normal cursor in
> vanilla v5.11 with the commit reverted.
But modetest with 256x256 doesn't work (correctly) right? Or did I
misunderstand?

All the patch does is allow those large cursors to be used, which gets
reported via drm APIs and modesetting picks the largest cursor
available. (And actually I think it's even not required to use the
large cursors, it just controls what's reported in the defaults to
userspace.)

Thanks,

  -ilia

Ilia Mirkin, Wed, Feb 24, 2021 17:57:41 +0100:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:53 AM Alex Riesen <alexander.riesen at
cetitec.com> wrote:
> > Ilia Mirkin, Wed, Feb 24, 2021 17:48:39 +0100:
> > > Just to be crystal clear -- are you saying that 128x128 works or
does
> > > not work? (You said "yes", which would imply it works
OK, but then you
> > > said both cases, which would imply doesn't work since 256x256
doesn't
> > > work?)
> >
> > Modetest with 128x128 cursor works. Without damage to the cursor:
modetest
> > shows normal cursor in vanilla v5.11. Modetest also shows normal
cursor in
> > vanilla v5.11 with the commit reverted.
> 
> But modetest with 256x256 doesn't work (correctly) right? Or did I
> misunderstand?
Right. That's why I was asking if I did everything right: it was just
corrupted
in both kernels.
> All the patch does is allow those large cursors to be used, which gets
> reported via drm APIs and modesetting picks the largest cursor
> available. (And actually I think it's even not required to use the
> large cursors, it just controls what's reported in the defaults to
> userspace.)
Maybe something in X code is not prepared to handle the kernel reporting
large cursor support? Even though 128x128 is pretty large, and I don't think
I even use that large cursors in X configuration. How can I check?