On 2023-04-25 14:32:51, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
<snip>
> >>>>> We can return NULL from dpu_hw_foo_init(), which would mean that the
> >>>>> block was skipped or is not present.
> >>>>
> >>>> An then replace the `if INTF_NONE continue` logic in dpu_rm_init with a
> >>>> check for NULL that skips, and a check for IS_ERR` that goes to `fail`?
> >>>
> >>> You can just drop the INTF_NONE in dpu_rm. If dpu_hw_intf_init()
> >>> returns NULL, the rest of the code in dpu_rm will work correctly.
Sure, I'll keep the check exclusively in dpu_hw_intf_init(). Should I
also move the pingpong==PINGPONG_MAX check into dpu_hw_lm_init()?
> >> The only thing lost will be that the loop in the RM will break at the
> >> first instance of NULL so if the loop has valid intf blocks later, those
> >> will also not get initialized.
> >
> > No, it won't. There is the IS_ERR check, not the IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
Only DSC currently uses IS_ERR_OR_NULL... We should fix that as
rc=PTR_ERR(hw) on the next should be 0 (actually, the intent is for it
to be undefined I think) for that...
> Ack, but isnt that an issue since rm->hw_intf[intf->id - INTF_0] can be
> assigned to a NULL hw.
Yes, that is exactly the intent here.
> >> That wont happen today because catalog doesnt have such entries but just
> >> wanted to note what gets lost with this change.
It does, we have a few SoCs with type=INTF_NONE. Quoting myself from
above:
As per the first patch of this series SM6115/QCM2290 only have a DSI
interface which always sits at ID 1, and ID 0 has its TYPE set to
INTF_NONE and is skipped.
- Marijn
