Message-ID: <ucttjaf3trkgtpvhnsj7xfsybhnoi4qqow5ucwghlggivbagy7@gngjhbtu73lb>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:54:06 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>, 
	Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, 
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Daniel Thompson <danielt@...nel.org>, 
	Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>, 
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, 
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>, 
	Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>, 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>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Hervé Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>, 
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 14/26] drm/bridge: add support for refcounted DRM
 bridges

On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 12:47:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > DRM bridges are currently considered as a fixed element of a DRM card, and
> > thus their lifetime is assumed to extend for as long as the card
> > exists. New use cases, such as hot-pluggable hardware with video bridges,
> > require DRM bridges to be added and removed to a DRM card without tearing
> > the card down. This is possible for connectors already (used by DP MST), so
> > add this possibility to DRM bridges as well.
> > 
> > Implementation is based on drm_connector_init() as far as it makes sense,
> > and differs when it doesn't. A difference is that bridges are not exposed
> > to userspace, hence struct drm_bridge does not embed a struct
> > drm_mode_object which would provide the refcount. Instead we add to struct
> > drm_bridge a refcount field (we don't need other struct drm_mode_object
> > fields here) and instead of using the drm_mode_object_*() functions we
> > reimplement from those functions the few lines that drm_bridge needs for
> > refcounting.
> > 
> > Also add a new devm_drm_bridge_alloc() macro to allocate a new refcounted
> > bridge.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
> 
> So, a couple of general comments:
> 
> - I've said it a couple of times already, but I really think you're
>   making it harder than necessary for you here. This (and only this!)
>   should be the very first series you should be pushing. The rest can
>   only ever work if that work goes through, and it's already hard enough
>   as it is. So, split that patch into a series of its own, get that
>   merged, and then we will be able to deal with panels conversion and
>   whatever. That's even more true with panels since there's ongoing work
>   that will make it easier for you too. So the best thing here is
>   probably to wait.

Luca and I had a quick chat on this during FOSDEM. I really think that
panel (part of the) series can go in first as it fixes a very well known
bug _and_ allows a pretty good cleanup to a whole set of drivers. With
all those panel / bridge wrappers gone we should be able to see a
clearer picture of what individual drivers are doing. In other words,
which memory and which code actually hosts and uses internal
'next_bridge' reference.

> - This patch really needs to be split into several patches, something
>   along the lines of:
> 
>   + Creating devm_drm_bridge_alloc()
>   + Adding refcounting
>   + Taking the references in all the needed places
>   + Converting a bunch of drivers

The last two parts seem troublematic to me, but, I must admit, I didn't
spend so much time reviewing all drm_bridge usage patterns.

> 
> > Changes in v6:
> >  - use drm_warn, not WARN_ON (Jani Nikula)
> >  - Add devm_drm_bridge_alloc() to replace drm_bridge_init() (similar to
> >    drmm_encoder_alloc)
> >  - Remove .destroy func: deallocation is done via the struct offset
> >    computed by the devm_drm_bridge_alloc() macro
> >  - use fixed free callback, as the same callback is used in all cases
> >    anyway (remove free_cb, add bool is_refcounted)
> >  - add drm_bridge_get/put() to drm_bridge_attach/detach() (add the bridge
> >    to a list)
> >  - make some DRM_DEBUG() strings more informative
> > 
> > This patch was added in v5.
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c |  76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  include/drm/drm_bridge.h     | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > index 1955a231378050abf1071d74a145831b425c47c5..f694b32ca59cb91c32846bc00b43360df41cc1ad 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > @@ -200,6 +200,57 @@
> >  DEFINE_MUTEX(bridge_lock);
> >  LIST_HEAD(bridge_list);
> >  
> > +/* Internal function (for refcounted bridges) */
> > +void __drm_bridge_free(struct kref *kref)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_bridge *bridge = container_of(kref, struct drm_bridge, refcount);
> > +	void *container = ((void *)bridge) - bridge->container_offset;
> > +
> > +	DRM_DEBUG("bridge=%p, container=%p FREE\n", bridge, container);
> 
> Pointers are not really useful to track here, since they are obfuscated
> most of the time. Using the bridge device name would probably be better
> (or removing the SHOUTING DEBUG entirely :))

bridge device name or bridge funcs (I opted for the latter for the
debugfs file)


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists