linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/16] drm/msm/dpu: handle pipes as array

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <l6z2skrj2tvlnqok44yepqs32keuz3wsfpgsacesrxi3q4s4xb@oiicfia3tkef>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:00:03 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, 
	Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...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 v4 10/16] drm/msm/dpu: handle pipes as array

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:25:59PM +0800, Jun Nie wrote:
> Store pipes in array with removing dedicated r_pipe. There are
> 2 pipes in a drm plane at most currently, while 4 pipes are
> required for quad-pipe case. Generalize the handling to pipe pair
> and ease handling to another pipe pair later.

With the first sentence being moved to the end of the commit message:

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>

Minor issues below, please address them in the next version.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c  |  35 +++----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++-------------
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h |  12 +--
>  3 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)

> @@ -853,6 +855,9 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check_nosspp(struct drm_plane *plane,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	/* move the assignment here, to ease handling to another pairs later */

Is it a TODO comment? It reads like an order.

> +	pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg[0];
> +	r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg[1];
>  	/* state->src is 16.16, src_rect is not */
>  	drm_rect_fp_to_int(&pipe_cfg->src_rect, &new_plane_state->src);
>  

> @@ -1387,17 +1394,28 @@ static void _dpu_plane_atomic_disable(struct drm_plane *plane)
>  {
>  	struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
>  	struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
> -	struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
> +	struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe;
> +	int i;
>  
> -	trace_dpu_plane_disable(DRMID(plane), false,
> -				pstate->pipe.multirect_mode);
> +	for (i = 0; i < PIPES_PER_STAGE; i += 1) {
> +		pipe = &pstate->pipe[i];
> +		if (!pipe->sspp)
> +			continue;
>  
> -	if (r_pipe->sspp) {
> -		r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
> -		r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
> +		trace_dpu_plane_disable(DRMID(plane), false,
> +					pstate->pipe[i].multirect_mode);
>  
> -		if (r_pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect)
> -			r_pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect(r_pipe);
> +		/*
> +		 * clear multirect for the right pipe so that the SSPP
> +		 * can be further reused in the solo mode
> +		 */
> +		if (pipe->sspp && i == 1) {

Wouldn't it be better to `&& i % 2 != 0`? Then, I think, this condition
can stay even in quad-pipe case.

> +			pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
> +			pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
> +
> +			if (pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect)
> +				pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect(pipe);
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	pstate->pending = true;

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry