On 15/06/2022 20:11, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/15/2022 10:04 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 15/06/2022 19:40, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/15/2022 5:36 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 14/06/2022 22:32, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
intf and wb resources are not dependent on the rm global
state so need not be allocated during
dpu_encoder_virt_atomic_mode_set().
Move the allocation of intf and wb resources to
dpu_encoder_setup_display()
so that we can utilize the hw caps even during atomic_check() phase.
Since dpu_encoder_setup_display() already has protection against
setting invalid intf_idx and wb_idx, these checks can now
be dropped as well.
Fixes: e02a559a720f ("make changes to dpu_encoder to support
virtual encoder")
Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c | 25
+++++++------------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
index 3a462e327e0e..e991d4ba8a40 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
@@ -1048,24 +1048,6 @@ static void
dpu_encoder_virt_atomic_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *drm_enc,
phys->hw_pp = dpu_enc->hw_pp[i];
phys->hw_ctl = to_dpu_hw_ctl(hw_ctl[i]);
- if (phys->intf_idx >= INTF_0 && phys->intf_idx < INTF_MAX)
- phys->hw_intf = dpu_rm_get_intf(&dpu_kms->rm,
phys->intf_idx);
-
- if (phys->wb_idx >= WB_0 && phys->wb_idx < WB_MAX)
- phys->hw_wb = dpu_rm_get_wb(&dpu_kms->rm, phys->wb_idx);
-
- if (!phys->hw_intf && !phys->hw_wb) {
- DPU_ERROR_ENC(dpu_enc,
- "no intf or wb block assigned at idx: %d\n",
i);
- return;
- }
-
- if (phys->hw_intf && phys->hw_wb) {
- DPU_ERROR_ENC(dpu_enc,
- "invalid phys both intf and wb block at idx:
%d\n", i);
- return;
- }
Please retain these checks in dpu_encoder_setup_display().
It checks that we really have got the intf or wb. For example one
might have specified the INTF that leads to INTF_NONE interface. Or
non-existing/not supported WB.
Right, so the reason I omitted that was dpu_encoder_setup_display()
already has these checks:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c#L2273
Please check lines 2273-2284.
Only if all those checks succeeded we call
dpu_encoder_virt_add_phys_encs which increments num_phys_encs.
As I wrote, it checks indices from phys_params, but not the acquired
hardware instances.
Right but today, both the get_intf() and get_wb() just return the
intf/wb corresponding to the index. So as long as the index is valid how
will checking hw_wb or hw_intf be different?
static inline struct dpu_hw_intf *dpu_rm_get_intf(struct dpu_rm *rm,
enum dpu_intf intf_idx)
{
return rm->hw_intf[intf_idx - INTF_0];
}
/**
* dpu_rm_get_wb - Return a struct dpu_hw_wb instance given it's index.
* @rm: DPU Resource Manager handle
* @wb_idx: WB index
*/
static inline struct dpu_hw_wb *dpu_rm_get_wb(struct dpu_rm *rm, enum
dpu_wb wb_idx)
{
return rm->hw_wb[wb_idx - WB_0];
}
WB_0 is valid, but dpu_rm_get_wb(WB_0) will return NULL.
INTF_0 is valid, but dpu_rm_get_intf(INTF_0) on qcm2290 will return NULL.
Etc.
Thats why I dropped those.
Let me know if you have more questions.
-
phys->cached_mode = crtc_state->adjusted_mode;
if (phys->ops.atomic_mode_set)
phys->ops.atomic_mode_set(phys, crtc_state, conn_state);
@@ -2293,7 +2275,14 @@ static int dpu_encoder_setup_display(struct
dpu_encoder_virt *dpu_enc,
struct dpu_encoder_phys *phys = dpu_enc->phys_encs[i];
atomic_set(&phys->vsync_cnt, 0);
atomic_set(&phys->underrun_cnt, 0);
+
+ if (phys->intf_idx >= INTF_0 && phys->intf_idx < INTF_MAX)
+ phys->hw_intf = dpu_rm_get_intf(&dpu_kms->rm,
phys->intf_idx);
+
+ if (phys->wb_idx >= WB_0 && phys->wb_idx < WB_MAX)
+ phys->hw_wb = dpu_rm_get_wb(&dpu_kms->rm, phys->wb_idx);
}
+
mutex_unlock(&dpu_enc->enc_lock);
return ret;
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
