[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a64c685-9ff0-bc1d-e604-e3773ff9edd7@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 10:57:18 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm: Initialize mode_config earlier
On 13/01/2023 06:23, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 13/01/2023 06:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> Invoking drm_bridge_hpd_notify() on a drm_bridge with a HPD-enabled
>> bridge_connector ends up in drm_bridge_connector_hpd_cb() calling
>> drm_kms_helper_hotplug_event(), which assumes that the associated
>> drm_device's mode_config.funcs is a valid pointer.
>>
>> But in the MSM DisplayPort driver the HPD enablement happens at bind
>> time and mode_config.funcs is initialized late in msm_drm_init(). This
>> means that there's a window for hot plug events to dereference a NULL
>> mode_config.funcs.
>>
>> Move the assignment of mode_config.funcs before the bind, to avoid this
>> scenario.
>
> Cam we make DP driver not to report HPD events until the enable_hpd()
> was called? I think this is what was fixed by your internal_hpd patchset.
Or to express this in another words: I thought that internal_hpd already
deferred enabling hpd event reporting till the time when we need it,
didn't it?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists