Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 09:36:07 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mark yao <mark.yao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2016年03月05日 20:39, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 12:11:16PM +0000, John Keeping wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 03:22:01PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >>>> The drm_encoder_cleanup() was missing both from the error path of
> >>>> dw_hdmi_rockchip_bind(). This caused a crash when slub_debug was
> >>>> enabled and we ended up deferring probe of HDMI at boot.
> >>>>
> >>>> This call isn't needed from unbind() because if dw_hdmi_bind() returns
> >>>> no error then it takes over the job of freeing the encoder (in
> >>>> dw_hdmi_unbind).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Does dw_hdmi-imx need a similar change? I wonder if it would be cleaner
> >>> to push this into dw_hdmi_bind() if it affects all of the platforms..
> >>
> >> I don't think moving it there would make sense - keep the initialisation
> >> and cleanup together in the same file so that it's contained together.
> >
> > I don't like this patch too, initialisation and cleanup not in the same
> > file looks bad,
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/dw-hdmi.c
> > void dw_hdmi_unbind(struct device *dev, struct device *master, void *data)
> >
> > hdmi_writeb(hdmi, ~0, HDMI_IH_MUTE_PHY_STAT0);
> >
> > hdmi->connector.funcs->destroy(&hdmi->connector);
> > - hdmi->encoder->funcs->destroy(hdmi->encoder);
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi-rockchip.c
> > static int dw_hdmi_rockchip_bind(struct device *dev, struct device
> > *master,
> >
> > - return dw_hdmi_bind(dev, master, data, encoder, iores, irq,
> > plat_data);
> > + ret = dw_hdmi_bind(dev, master, data, encoder, iores, irq,
> > plat_data);
> > + if (ret)
> > + drm_encoder_cleanup(encoder);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> >
> > }
> >
> > static void dw_hdmi_rockchip_unbind(struct device *dev, struct device
> >
> > *master,
> >
> > void *data)
> >
> > {
> >
> > + drm_encoder_cleanup(...);
> >
> > return dw_hdmi_unbind(dev, master, data);
> >
> > }
>
> That'a a reasonable suggestion in theory. ...but we run into the same
> problem I've run into before with the strange relationship between
> dw_hdmi and its descendants.
I don't think handing off the cleanup responsibility is really in question
here. I.e. I do believe it should also be fine to expect (as definition) the
core driver to cleanup the encoder _after_ it sucessfully claimed it in
dw_hdmi_bind().
We do the same in the rockchip power-domains, handing off the struct clk-
pointer to the pm_clk stuff (due to the clk-pointer being unique per-device
nowadays).
So just making sure it is sucessfully handed off should also be ok.
Heiko
>
> Specifically:
>
> * "struct dw_hdmi", which has a pointer to encoder, is private to dw-hdmi.c
>
> * We could get the encoder if we had a pointer to the "struct
> rockchip_hdmi", but there's no way to get that. You would _think_ you
> could get it back using platform_get_drvdata() because it was stashed
> with platform_set_drvdata(). ...but you'd be wrong. The
> platform_set_drvdata() is just there to fool you. I believe when you
> call dw_hdmi_bind() it clobbers your drvdata when it calls
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, hdmi);
>
>
> Said another way: taking your suggestion means we need to add some way
> for dw_hdmi-rockchip.c to get a pointer to the encoder from a "struct
> device". We could (A) move the "struct dw_hdmi" definition to a
> private header and allow dw_hdmi-rockchip.c to include it or we could
> (B) add a dw_hdmi_get_encoder() API call that dw_hdmi-rockchip.c could
> call.
>
>
> If someone would let me know whether (A) or (B) is OK I'm happy to post a
> patch.
>
>
> ...or, of course, if I've made a mistake in all the above, feel free
> to point it out.
>
>
> -Doug
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
