On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:19:04PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> 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?
It appears that you can't just pass a kifo pointer as a function
argument, so the only two remaining solutions were to have a global
pointer or embed it in a structure. It just seems like the best
solution.
>
> Otherwise the rest of the code looks sound.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
Applied, thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
