On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The commit da82b8785eeb ("drm/sun4i: add components in breadth first
> traversal order") implemented a breadth first traversal of our device tree
> nodes graph. However, it was relying on the kernel linked lists, and those
> are not really safe for addition.
>
> Indeed, in a single pipeline stage, your first stage (ie, the mixer or
> fronted) will be queued, and it will be the final iteration of that list as
> far as list_for_each_entry_safe is concerned. Then, during that final
> iteration, we'll queue another element (the TCON or the backend) that
> list_for_each_entry_safe will not account for, and we will leave the loop
> without having iterated over all the elements. And since we won't have
> built our components list properly, the DRM driver will be left
> non-functional.
>
> We can instead use a kfifo to queue and enqueue components in-order, as was
> the original intention. This also has the benefit of removing any dynamic
> allocation, making the error handling path simpler too. The only thing
> we're losing is the ability to tell whether an element has already been
> queued, but that was only needed to remove spurious logs, and therefore
> purely cosmetic.
>
> This means that this commit effectively reverses e8afb7b67fba ("drm/sun4i:
> don't add components that are already in the queue").
>
> Fixes: da82b8785eeb ("drm/sun4i: add components in breadth first traversal order")
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c | 71 +++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> index b5879d4620d8..a27efad9bc76 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/component.h>
> +#include <linux/kfifo.h>
> #include <linux/of_graph.h>
> #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
>
> @@ -222,29 +223,15 @@ static int compare_of(struct device *dev, void *data)
> * matching system handles this for us.
> */
> struct endpoint_list {
> - struct device_node *node;
> - struct list_head list;
> + DECLARE_KFIFO(fifo, struct device_node *, 16);
> };
Is there any reason to keep using struct endpoint_list, other than
to avoid using kfifo in function parameter lists?
Otherwise the rest of the code looks sound.
Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
