Re: [DPU PATCH 06/11] drm/msm: Remove msm_commit/kthread, use atomic helper commit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2018-03-19 08:01, Sean Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:23:10PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:08:03PM -0800, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
> On 2018-03-02 06:56, Sean Paul wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:37 PM,  <jsanka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2018-03-01 07:27, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:07:00PM -0800, jsanka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2018-02-28 11:19, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > >>> > Moving further towards switching fully to the the atomic
helpers,
> > this
> > > >>> > patch removes the hand-rolled kthread nonblock commit code
and
> > uses
> > > >>
> > > >> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > atomic helpers commit_work model.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > There's still a lot of copypasta here, but it's still needed
to
> > > >>> > facilitate the swap_state and prepare_fence private
functions.
> > These
> > > >>> > will be sorted out in a follow-on patch.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Change-Id: I9fcba27824ba63d3fab96cb2bc194bfa6f3475b7
> > > >>> > Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> > ---

<snip />

> > > >>
> > > >>> > -                                     /* only return zero if
work
> > is
> > > >>> > -                                      * queued
successfully.
> > > >>> > -                                      */
> > > >>> > -                                     ret = 0;
> > > >>> > -                             } else {
> > > >>> > -                                     DRM_ERROR(" Error for
> > crtc_id:
> > > >>> > %d\n",
> > > >>> > -
> > > >>> > priv->disp_thread[j].crtc_id);
> > > >>> > -                             }
> > > >>> > -                             break;
> > > >>> > -                     }
> > > >>> > -             }
>
> Care to remove priv->disp_thread and all its references as a part of
this
> change?

Definitely! Will revise.


Now that I look at it, disp_thread doesn't seem relevant to this change.
It
seems like it's used for deferred cleanup. So perhaps we could get rid of
it,
but IMO that would be a different patch.

Sean

hmm.. disp_threads are created per CRTC (per display) to allow concurrency of hardware programming. So its not entirely irrelevant to this chnage. But since it involves more than just priv->disp_thread cleanup, I am fine with cleaning
that in a separate patch.

Reviewed-by: Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> - Jeykumar S

<snip />

--
Jeykumar S
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux