[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPY8ntBWmfDPwPJS_z5tko7PUxHG9pVQ1DOKC3baGDCNzMzykw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:16:47 +0100
From: Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>
To: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
Cc: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/bridge: Fix handling of bridges with
pre_enable_prev_first flag
Hi Frieder
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 08:46, Frieder Schrempf
<frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote:
>
> On 07.07.23 21:00, Vladimir Lypak wrote:
> > [Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von vladimir.lypak@...il.com. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > In function drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable handling of
> > pre_enable_prev_first flag is broken because "next" variable will always
> > end up set to value of "bridge". This breaks loop which should disable
> > bridges in reverse:
> >
> > next = list_next_entry(bridge, chain_node);
> >
> > if (next->pre_enable_prev_first) {
> > /* next bridge had requested that prev
> > * was enabled first, so disabled last
> > */
> > limit = next;
> >
> > /* Find the next bridge that has NOT requested
> > * prev to be enabled first / disabled last
> > */
> > list_for_each_entry_from(next, &encoder->bridge_chain,
> > chain_node) {
> > // Next condition is always true. It is likely meant to be inversed
> > // according to comment above. But doing this uncovers another problem:
> > // it won't work if there are few bridges with this flag set at the end.
> > if (next->pre_enable_prev_first) {
> > next = list_prev_entry(next, chain_node);
> > limit = next;
> > // Here we always set next = limit = branch at first iteration.
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > /* Call these bridges in reverse order */
> > list_for_each_entry_from_reverse(next, &encoder->bridge_chain,
> > chain_node) {
> > // This loop never executes past this branch.
> > if (next == bridge)
> > break;
> >
> > drm_atomic_bridge_call_post_disable(next, old_state);
> >
> > In this patch logic for handling the flag is simplified. Temporary
> > "iter" variable is introduced instead of "next" which is used only
> > inside inner loops.
> >
> > Fixes: 4fb912e5e190 ("drm/bridge: Introduce pre_enable_prev_first to alter bridge init order")
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>
>
> I haven't had a chance to look at this, but I still want to reference
> another patch by Jagan that intends to fix some bug in this area:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/patch/20230328170752.1102347-1-jagan@amarulasolutions.com/
>
> +Cc: Jagan
>
> Dave, as you introduced this feature, did you have a chance to look at
> Jagan's and Vladimir's patches?
Sorry, they'd fallen off my radar.
I'm having a look at the moment, but will probably need to carry it
over to Monday.
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists