On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 08:20:10PM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote: > Subclass drm private state for DPU for handling driver > specific data. Adds atomic private object and private object > lock to dpu kms. Provides helper function to retrieve DPU > private data from current atomic state. > > changes in v2: > - none > changes in v3: > - rebase on [1] > > [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/seanpaul/dpu-staging/commits/for-next > > Change-Id: Iaab32badff224ffed024e6ef6576efc8b3af3aec > Signed-off-by: Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h | 15 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c > index 7dd6bd2..5e87b9d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c > @@ -1168,10 +1168,59 @@ static int dpu_kms_hw_init(struct msm_kms *kms) > return rc; > } > > +struct dpu_private_state *dpu_get_private_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state) > +{ > + struct msm_drm_private *priv = state->dev->dev_private; > + struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(priv->kms); > + struct drm_private_state *priv_state; > + int rc = 0; > + > + rc = drm_modeset_lock(&dpu_kms->priv_obj_lock, state->acquire_ctx); > + if (rc) > + return ERR_PTR(rc); > + > + priv_state = drm_atomic_get_private_obj_state(state, > + &dpu_kms->priv_obj); > + if (IS_ERR(priv_state)) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + > + return to_dpu_private_state(priv_state); > +} > + > +static struct drm_private_state * > +dpu_private_obj_duplicate_state(struct drm_private_obj *obj) > +{ > + struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state; > + > + dpu_priv_state = kmemdup(obj->state, > + sizeof(*dpu_priv_state), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!dpu_priv_state) > + return NULL; > + > + __drm_atomic_helper_private_obj_duplicate_state(obj, > + &dpu_priv_state->base); > + > + return &dpu_priv_state->base; > +} > + > +static void dpu_private_obj_destroy_state(struct drm_private_obj *obj, > + struct drm_private_state *state) > +{ > + struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state = to_dpu_private_state(state); > + > + kfree(dpu_priv_state); > +} > + > +static const struct drm_private_state_funcs priv_obj_funcs = { > + .atomic_duplicate_state = dpu_private_obj_duplicate_state, > + .atomic_destroy_state = dpu_private_obj_destroy_state, > +}; > + All of this copypasta between mdp5 and dpu is pretty icky. Can we do a better job of sharing code? Perhaps some helpers in msm_atomic to help manage the priv_obj? > struct msm_kms *dpu_kms_init(struct drm_device *dev) > { > struct msm_drm_private *priv; > struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms; > + struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state; > int irq; > > if (!dev || !dev->dev_private) { > @@ -1189,6 +1238,18 @@ struct msm_kms *dpu_kms_init(struct drm_device *dev) > } > dpu_kms->base.irq = irq; > > + /* Initialize private obj's */ > + drm_modeset_lock_init(&dpu_kms->priv_obj_lock); > + > + dpu_priv_state = kzalloc(sizeof(*dpu_priv_state), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!dpu_priv_state) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + > + > + drm_atomic_private_obj_init(&dpu_kms->priv_obj, > + &dpu_priv_state->base, > + &priv_obj_funcs); > + > return &dpu_kms->base; > } > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h > index 66d4666..2579c983 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h > @@ -145,6 +145,9 @@ struct dpu_kms { > struct dpu_hw_vbif *hw_vbif[VBIF_MAX]; > struct dpu_hw_mdp *hw_mdp; > > + struct drm_modeset_lock priv_obj_lock; > + struct drm_private_obj priv_obj; > + > bool has_danger_ctrl; > > struct platform_device *pdev; > @@ -152,12 +155,24 @@ struct dpu_kms { > struct dss_module_power mp; > }; > > +struct dpu_private_state { > + struct drm_private_state base; > +}; > + > struct vsync_info { > u32 frame_count; > u32 line_count; > }; > > #define to_dpu_kms(x) container_of(x, struct dpu_kms, base) > +#define to_dpu_private_state(x) container_of(x, struct dpu_private_state, base) Do we really need this? It seems like we shouldn't have _that_ many structs containing dpu_private_state that we need the generic macro. > + > +/** > + * dpu_get_private_state - get dpu private state from atomic state > + * @state: drm atomic state > + * Return: pointer to dpu private state object > + */ > +struct dpu_private_state *dpu_get_private_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state); > > /* get struct msm_kms * from drm_device * */ > #define ddev_to_msm_kms(D) ((D) && (D)->dev_private ? \ > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > -- Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
