[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5dj43wxsszikpwbwzxx5v5h7jbx4vjjavnhzi26xgfcdp5wsws@t2hd3pawau4t>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:25:02 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drm/ssd130x: Allocate buffer in the CRTC's
.atomic_check() callback
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:48:09AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> writes:
>
> > Hi Javier,
> >
> > another idea about this patch: why not just keep the allocation in the
> > plane's atomic check, but store the temporary buffers in a plane struct.
> > You'd only grow the arrays length in atomic_check and later fetch the
> > pointers in atomic_update. It needs some locking, but nothing complicated.
> >
>
> Yes, that would work too. Another option is to just move the buffers to
> struct ssd130x_device as it was before commit 45b58669e532 ("drm/ssd130x:
> Allocate buffer in the plane's .atomic_check() callback") but just make
> them fixed arrays with the size of the biggest format.
>
> That will be some memory wasted but will prevent the problem of trying to
> allocate buffers after drm_atomic_helper_swap_state() has been called.
If we want to go that road, we don't even need an extra allocation, it
can be part of the state or object structure itself.
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists