On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 07:08:46PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 12/02/16 17:34, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 05:17:19PM +0200, Jyri Sarha wrote: > >> Fall back to legacy drm_helper_connector_dpms() call back in > >> drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms() if DRIVER_ATOMIC feature is not > >> present. > >> > >> Calling drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms() from non atomic driver > >> causes undefined behavior. This is a problem with componentized > >> encoder/connector drivers that may be bound to both atomic and > >> non atomic drivers. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@xxxxxx> > >> --- > >> This is just an alternative to this: > >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2016-January/098867.html > > > > I like the linked patch much better, since non-atomic really should die. > > Inflicting non-atomic on atomic helpers is bad imo, so nack from me on > > this patch here. > > I mostly agree, but we are in a transition period from non-atomic to > atomic. When all drivers have been converted to atomic, it should be > easy to grep for code using DRIVER_ATOMIC (or similar), and remove all > the non-atomic support code. > > In my opinion it should be considered case by case if the > non-atomic/atomic compat code should be added to the generic functions > or to all the drivers using that functionality. > > In this case, if it only affects tda998x (but does it?), perhaps the > patch in the link is better. Maybe we need a hybrid helper that just calls the atomic or non-atomic helper approppriately. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
