[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94da2c97-2ad2-4575-bd73-d66ad989e17b@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 19:14:52 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
quic_kalyant <quic_kalyant@...cinc.com>,
"Abhinav Kumar (QUIC)" <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
"Kuogee Hsieh (QUIC)" <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
quic_vproddut <quic_vproddut@...cinc.com>,
quic_aravindh@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/8] drm/msm/dp: prevent multiple votes for dp
resources
On 01/04/2022 02:23, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:04 AM Sankeerth Billakanti
> <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> The aux_bus support with the dp_display driver will enable the dp
>> resources during msm_dp_modeset_init. The host_init has to return early
>> if the core is already initialized to prevent putting an additional vote
>> for the dp controller resources.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> I'm not a huge fan of this but I'll leave it up to Dmitry. In general
> it feels like there should be _a_ place that enables these resources.
> Checks like this make it feel like we just scattershot enabling
> resources in a bunch of random places instead of coming up with the
> design for enabling them in the right place.
I'd prefer to see a check for eDP in dp_display_config_hpd(). Or even
better to see that this function isn't called for eDP at all.
>
> In any case, if we do end up landing this patch, it sure feels like it
> needs to move earlier in the patch series, right? This patch shouldn't
> hurt even without the other patches in the series but if you apply the
> earlier patches in the series without this one then you'll have a bug,
> right? That means this needs to come earlier.
>
> -Doug
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists