On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 09:59:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:07:52PM -0800, Manasi Navare wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:51:35AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:28:21PM -0800, Manasi Navare wrote: > > > > This is RFC patch for adding a connector link-status property > > > > and making it atomic by adding it to the drm_connector_state. > > > > This is to make sure its wired properly in drm_atomic_connector_set_property > > > > and drm_atomic_connector_get_property functions. > > > > > > > > v3: > > > > * Fixed a build error (Jani Saarinen) > > > > v2: > > > > * Removed connector->link_status (Daniel Vetter) > > > > * Set connector->state->link_status in drm_mode_connector_set_link_status_property > > > > (Daniel Vetter) > > > > * Set the connector_changed flag to true if connector->state->link_status changed. > > > > * Reset link_status to GOOD in update_output_state (Daniel Vetter) > > > > * Never allow userspace to set link status from Good To Bad (Daniel Vetter) > > > > > > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > You lost all the acked-by from AMD about the link-status property. We need > > > those. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Yeah I think this should work, but obviously testing has the final say. > > > Some nitpicks below, then it's r-b: me. But I think we also need to polish > > > the kernel-doc a bit more to address Sean Paul's questions. > > > -Daniel > > > > > > > I tested it with SNA driver with Chris's changes to read the link-status > > property, but It is not able to detect the link-status property being set to BAD > > and hence it does not trigger a new modeset. > > Do we need to make any changes to the SNA driver now that this is made a ATOMIC > > property so that GETCONNECTOR IOCTL can still read the correct value > > of this property throught drm_atomic_get_property() interface? > > > > Chris, Daniel, any thoughts? > > We agreed that it must _not_ be a PROPERTY_ATOMIC property, so that old > userspace can see it. > > > > > @@ -666,6 +683,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > dev->mode_config.tile_property = prop; > > > > > > > > + prop = drm_property_create_enum(dev, DRM_MODE_PROP_ATOMIC, "link-status", > > I.e. remote DRM_MODE_PROP_ATOMIC here. I thought we've discussed this a > lot already ...? > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch Hi Daniel, Yes this is where I was confused in the beginning that whether we need the flag. Ok so this property will not have atomic flag, so drm-mode_object_get_properties should call the drm_object_property_get_value() and that should expose the value to userspace right? Manasi _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
