[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211211215718.pe675o5wvculxavc@SoMainline.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:57:18 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>, robdclark@...il.com,
sean@...rly.run, airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch,
abhinavk@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org,
martin.botka@...ainline.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, paul.bouchara@...ainline.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/msm/dpu: Fix timeout issues on command mode
panels
On 2021-12-12 00:49:09, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 at 00:35, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org> wrote:
> > [..]
> > On this note, does it perhaps make more sense to call the "internal"
> > _dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_idle function directly, instead of going
> > through the "public" dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_tx_complete which
> > seems solely intended to handle the wait_for_tx_complete callback?
>
> Either one would work. The main difference is the error message. Do
> you want to see it here if the wait times out or not?
I prefer calling _dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_idle directly and
optionally adding our own error message. IIRC DRM_ERROR prints source
information such as the function this originated from, and that makes it
impossible to distinguish between the wait_for_tx_complete callback or
the invocation through dpu_encoder_phys_cmd_wait_for_commit_done anyway.
- Marijn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists