On 15.05.2017 11:30, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:39:35AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 11.05.2017 11:06, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> This changes the connector probe helper function to use the new
>>> encoder->mode_valid(), bridge->mode_valid() and crtc->mode_valid()
>>> helper callbacks to validate the modes.
>>>
>>> The new callbacks are optional so the behaviour remains the same
>>> if they are not implemented. If they are, then the code loops
>>> through all the connector's encodersXbridgesXcrtcs and calls the
>>> callback.
>>>
>>> If at least a valid encoderXbridgeXcrtc combination is found which
>>> accepts the mode then the function returns MODE_OK.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jose Abreu <joabreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Carlos Palminha <palminha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes v2->v3:
>>> - Call also bridge->mode_valid (Daniel)
>>> Changes v1->v2:
>>> - Use new helpers suggested by Ville
>>> - Change documentation (Daniel)
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>> index f01abdc..84d660e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>> @@ -83,6 +83,61 @@
>>> return MODE_OK;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static enum drm_mode_status
>>> +drm_mode_validate_connector(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>> + struct drm_display_mode *mode)
>>> +{
>>> + struct drm_device *dev = connector->dev;
>>> + uint32_t *ids = connector->encoder_ids;
>>> + enum drm_mode_status ret = MODE_OK;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> +
>>> + /* Step 1: Validate against connector */
>>> + ret = drm_connector_mode_valid(connector, mode);
>>> + if (ret != MODE_OK)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + /* Step 2: Validate against encoders and crtcs */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < DRM_CONNECTOR_MAX_ENCODER; i++) {
>>> + struct drm_encoder *encoder = drm_encoder_find(dev, ids[i]);
>>> + struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>>> +
>>> + if (!encoder)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + ret = drm_encoder_mode_valid(encoder, mode);
>>> + if (ret != MODE_OK) {
>>> + /* No point in continuing for crtc check as this encoder
>>> + * will not accept the mode anyway. If all encoders
>>> + * reject the mode then, at exit, ret will not be
>>> + * MODE_OK. */
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + ret = drm_bridge_mode_valid(encoder->bridge, mode);
>>> + if (ret != MODE_OK) {
>>> + /* There is also no point in continuing for crtc check
>>> + * here. */
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>> Maybe it is a bikeshedding, but wouldn't be better to call
>> drm_bridge_mode_valid from drm_encoder_mode_valid, in general call all
>> bridge related stuff from corresponding encoder stuff?
>> This is more question about role of encoder->bridge, should it be
>> treated as encoder's extension, or as 1st class citizen in drm?
>>
>> Another concern is about order of calls, it is from sink to source, to
>> keep it consistent bridge should be called before encoder, am I right?
> For the atomic_check stuff (where we do change the passed-in mode) this
> would be correct, and calling order and layering would matter. But this
> just validates the mode in turn with everything, not taking any
> cross-component constraint or other configuration-dependent constraints
> into account. Hence it doesn't matter in which order we call stuff.
>
> Note that the passed-in mode is const, so you can't escape. And v3 of
> patch 1 now has added wording that you're not allowed to look at anything
> else dynamie either.
>
> Does that address your concern?
Yes, I know it practically does not matter. I have mistakenly written
"Beside this: R-b", it should be rather "Anyway: R-b" :)
Regards
Andrzej
> -Daniel
>
>> Beside this:
>> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Andrzej
>>
>>> +
>>> + drm_for_each_crtc(crtc, dev) {
>>> + if (!drm_encoder_crtc_ok(encoder, crtc))
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + ret = drm_crtc_mode_valid(crtc, mode);
>>> + if (ret == MODE_OK) {
>>> + /* If we get to this point there is at least
>>> + * one combination of encoder+crtc that works
>>> + * for this mode. Lets return now. */
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(struct drm_connector *connector)
>>> {
>>> struct drm_cmdline_mode *cmdline_mode;
>>> @@ -322,7 +377,11 @@ void drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(struct drm_device *dev)
>>> * - drm_mode_validate_flag() checks the modes against basic connector
>>> * capabilities (interlace_allowed,doublescan_allowed,stereo_allowed)
>>> * - the optional &drm_connector_helper_funcs.mode_valid helper can perform
>>> - * driver and/or hardware specific checks
>>> + * driver and/or sink specific checks
>>> + * - the optional &drm_crtc_helper_funcs.mode_valid,
>>> + * &drm_bridge_funcs.mode_valid and &drm_encoder_helper_funcs.mode_valid
>>> + * helpers can perform driver and/or source specific checks which are also
>>> + * enforced by the modeset/atomic helpers
>>> *
>>> * 5. Any mode whose status is not OK is pruned from the connector's modes list,
>>> * accompanied by a debug message indicating the reason for the mode's
>>> @@ -466,8 +525,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>> if (mode->status == MODE_OK)
>>> mode->status = drm_mode_validate_flag(mode, mode_flags);
>>>
>>> - if (mode->status == MODE_OK && connector_funcs->mode_valid)
>>> - mode->status = connector_funcs->mode_valid(connector,
>>> + if (mode->status == MODE_OK)
>>> + mode->status = drm_mode_validate_connector(connector,
>>> mode);
>>> }
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
