On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:37:30AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote: > > > On 3/1/23 15:21, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:23:19AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 12:52:10PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 15:30 +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > >>>> The if / else block code has same effect irrespective of the logical > >>>> evaluation. Hence, simply the implementation by removing the unnecessary > >>>> conditional evaluation. While at it, also fix the long line checkpatch > >>>> complaint. Issue identified using cond_no_effect.cocci Coccinelle > >>>> semantic patch script. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> Please note: The proposed change is compile tested only. If there are any > >>>> inbuilt test cases that I should run for further verification, I will appreciate > >>>> guidance about it. Thank you. > >>> > >>> Preface: I do not know the code. > >>> > >>> Perhaps Rodrigo Siqueira made a copy/paste error submitting the code for > >>> commit 9114b55fabae ("drm/amd/display: Fix SubVP control flow in the MPO context") > >>> as the code prior to this change is identical. > >>> > >>> Perhaps one of the false uses should be true or dependent on the > >>> interdependent_update_lock state. > >> > >> Thank you Joe for the recommendation. > >> > >> Hi Rodrigo, > >> Can you review and comment on if and what is wrong with your commit? > > > > Hello Rodrigo, Alex, > > Could you please suggest what would be the necessary fix for this typo error? > > > > It's not quite a "typo" error. When I look at this code in our internal repo I see > a couple missing lock calls here that differ between the two cases. I don't know why > this was never ported over and am surprised it doesn't lead to issues. > > I would prefer we keep the code as-is for now until this gets sorted. Sounds good. Do let me know if I can be of any help. Deepak. > > Harry > > > Thank you, > > Deepak. > > > >> > >> Thank you, > >> ./drv > >> > >>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c > >>> [] > >>>> @@ -3470,14 +3470,9 @@ static void commit_planes_for_stream(struct dc *dc, > >>>> /* Since phantom pipe programming is moved to post_unlock_program_front_end, > >>>> * move the SubVP lock to after the phantom pipes have been setup > >>>> */ > >>>> - if (should_lock_all_pipes && dc->hwss.interdependent_update_lock) { > >>>> - if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock) > >>>> - dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context, false, should_lock_all_pipes, NULL, subvp_prev_use); > >>>> - } else { > >>>> - if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock) > >>>> - dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context, false, should_lock_all_pipes, NULL, subvp_prev_use); > >>>> - } > >>>> - > >>> > >>> Perhaps something like: > >>> > >>> if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock) > >>> dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context, > >>> should_lock_all_pipes && > >>> dc->hwss.interdependent_update_lock, > >>> should_lock_all_pipes, NULL, subvp_prev_use); > >>> > >>>> + if (dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock) > >>>> + dc->hwss.subvp_pipe_control_lock(dc, context, false, should_lock_all_pipes, > >>>> + NULL, subvp_prev_use); > >>>> return; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > >