[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4518320e-4699-4026-adbe-b28514bde544@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:04:12 +0200
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Aradhya Bhatia <aradhya.bhatia@...ux.dev>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>, Praneeth Bajjuri <praneeth@...com>,
Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>, Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@...com>,
DRI Development List <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/12] drm/atomic-helper: Re-order bridge chain
pre-enable and post-disable
Hi,
On 14/01/2025 13:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:26:25AM +0530, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
>> Move the bridge pre_enable call before crtc enable, and the bridge
>> post_disable call after the crtc disable.
>>
>> The sequence of enable after this patch will look like:
>>
>> bridge[n]_pre_enable
>> ...
>> bridge[1]_pre_enable
>>
>> crtc_enable
>> encoder_enable
>>
>> bridge[1]_enable
>> ...
>> bridge[n]_enable
>>
>> And, the disable sequence for the display pipeline will look like:
>>
>> bridge[n]_disable
>> ...
>> bridge[1]_disable
>>
>> encoder_disable
>> crtc_disable
>>
>> bridge[1]_post_disable
>> ...
>> bridge[n]_post_disable
>>
>> The definition of bridge pre_enable hook says that,
>> "The display pipe (i.e. clocks and timing signals) feeding this bridge
>> will not yet be running when this callback is called".
>>
>> Since CRTC is also a source feeding the bridge, it should not be enabled
>> before the bridges in the pipeline are pre_enabled. Fix that by
>> re-ordering the sequence of bridge pre_enable and bridge post_disable.
>
> The patch contains both refactoring of the corresponding functions and
> changing of the order. Please split it into two separate commits.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <a-bhatia1@...com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <aradhya.bhatia@...ux.dev>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 300 +++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>> index 5186d2114a50..ad6290a4a528 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,12 @@
>> * also shares the &struct drm_plane_helper_funcs function table with the plane
>> * helpers.
>> */
>> +
>> +enum bridge_chain_operation_type {
>> + DRM_BRIDGE_PRE_ENABLE_OR_POST_DISABLE,
>> + DRM_BRIDGE_ENABLE_OR_DISABLE,
>> +};
>> +
>
> I have mixed feelings towards this approach. I doubt that it actually
> helps. Would you mind replacing it with just 'bool pre_enable' / 'bool
> post_disable' arguments?
If my memory serves, I suggested the enum. I don't like it too much
either. But neither do I like the boolean that much, as this is not a
yes/no, on/off case... Then again, maybe boolean is fine here, as the
"off" case is the "normal/default" case so it's still ok-ish.
But this doesn't matter much, I think. It's internal, and can be
trivially adjusted later.
Tomi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists