linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] drm/msm/dpu: move rot90 checking to dpu_plane_atomic_check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA8EJpocScDmfSpSctOYiMiOLKpcWOP8x4qjGkdx0sieUsnvzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:55:58 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, 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 v5 09/12] drm/msm/dpu: move rot90 checking to dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe()

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 22:05, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/26/2024 2:46 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > Move a call to dpu_plane_check_inline_rotation() to the
> > dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe() function, so that the rot90 constraints
> > are checked for both pipes. Also move rotation field from struct
> > dpu_plane_state to struct dpu_sw_pipe_cfg.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.h |  2 ++
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c   | 55 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h   |  2 --
> >   3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Change LGTM and addresses one of the questions I had in the prev patch.
>
> One question though, till patch 11 which adds support for 2 different
> SSPPs for the plane this change is not necessary right? Because till
> that change we assign the same SSPP OR two rectangles of the same SSPP
> so we dont need a per pipe_cfg check till then because both the
> pipe_cfgs point to the same SSPP.
>
> What is your thought on squashing this with patch 11 because from a
> logical split PoV, this change is meaningful only after that.

I'd say patch 11 is complicated enough. I'll check if I can change the
order of patches 09 and 10 to make it more obvious.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry