On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:40:53AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:59, Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > When unloading the ast driver, a warning message is printed by
> > > drm_mode_config_cleanup() because a reference is still held to one of
> > > the drm_connector structs.
> > >
> > > Correct this by calling drm_framebuffer_remove() in
> > > ast_fbdev_destroy().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_fb.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_fb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_fb.c
> > > index 0cd827e11fa2..655372ea81e9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_fb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_fb.c
> > > @@ -263,6 +263,10 @@ static void ast_fbdev_destroy(struct drm_device *dev,
> > > {
> > > struct ast_framebuffer *afb = &afbdev->afb;
> > >
> > > + /* drm_framebuffer_remove() expects us to hold a ref, which it
> > > + * will drop, so take one: */
> > > + drm_framebuffer_get(&afb->base);
> > > + drm_framebuffer_remove(&afb->base);
> >
> > This doesn't seem corret, no other driver does this pattern, and I
> > can't believe ast is special here.
> >
> > The get just doesn't make sense.
>
> Thanks for having a look at this, as I said in the cover letter I was
> concerned that it might not be a good fix.
>
> But the AST driver does seem to be special (or just old?) because it
> embeds the drm_framebuffer directly into ast_fbdev and (almost all)
> other drivers dynamically allocate and reference count theirs.
>
> The drm_framebuffer_get() certainly looks weird but it is there in order
> to cause drm_framebuffer_remove() to call legacy_remove_fb(), which it
> won't do unless the refcount is at least 2. (And because the
> drm_framebuffer isn't dynamically allocated in this case we don't really
> care about the reference count anyway.)
>
> An alternative might be to call legacy_remove_fb() directly, but it's
> declared static. Do you think it would be better to expose it and call
> it directly from the AST driver code? Or is there some other better way
> to put the drm_connectors?
Your problem isn't the dynamic fb vs. embedded fb for fbdev (you're
already using drm_framebuffer_unregister_private to handle that). Your
problem is you're not shutting down stuff on driver unload, which
means the fb is still in use. drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() takes care
of that for atomic drivers.
No idea anymore what to do for legacy code, probably need to open code
a shutdown sequence. Definitely not the above.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
