On 2020-08-07 4:52 a.m., daniel@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:36:42PM -0400, Nicholas Kazlauskas wrote:
@@ -440,7 +431,7 @@ struct dm_crtc_state {
#define to_dm_crtc_state(x) container_of(x, struct dm_crtc_state, base)
struct dm_atomic_state {
- struct drm_private_state base;
+ struct drm_atomic_state base;
struct dc_state *context;
Also curiosity: Can't we just embed dc_state here, instead of a pointer?
Then it would become a lot more obvious that mostly this is a state object
container like drm_atomic_state, but for the DC specific state structures.
And we could look into moving the actual DC states into drm private states
perhaps (if that helps with the code structure and overall flow).
Maybe as next steps.
-Daniel
It's the refcounting that's the problem with this stuff. I'd like to
move DC to a model where we have no memory allocation/ownership but that
might be a bit of a more long term plan at this point.
Same with dc_plane_state and dc_stream_state as well - these could exist
on the DRM objects as long as they're not refcounted.
Regards,
Nicholas Kazlauskas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
