[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:32 PM
> To: Lin, Wayne <Wayne.Lin@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lyude@xxxxxxxxxx; jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx; ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Wentland, Harry <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx>; Zuo, Jerry
> <Jerry.Zuo@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/mst: adjust the function
> drm_dp_remove_payload_part2()
>
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 02:20:29PM +0800, Wayne Lin wrote:
> > [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > index e04f87ff755a..4270178f95f6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > @@ -3382,8 +3382,7 @@
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_remove_payload_part1);
> > * drm_dp_remove_payload_part2() - Remove an MST payload locally
> > * @mgr: Manager to use.
> > * @mst_state: The MST atomic state
> > - * @old_payload: The payload with its old state
> > - * @new_payload: The payload with its latest state
> > + * @payload: The payload with its latest state
> > *
> > * Updates the starting time slots of all other payloads which would have
> been shifted towards
> > * the start of the payload ID table as a result of removing a
> > payload. Driver should call this @@ -3392,25 +3391,36 @@
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_remove_payload_part1);
> > */
> > void drm_dp_remove_payload_part2(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr
> *mgr,
> > struct drm_dp_mst_topology_state
> *mst_state,
> > - const struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload
> *old_payload,
> > - struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload
> *new_payload)
> > + struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload
> *payload)
> > {
> > struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload *pos;
> > + u8 time_slots_to_remove;
> > + u8 next_payload_vc_start = mgr->next_start_slot;
> > +
> > + /* Find the current allocated time slot number of the payload */
> > + list_for_each_entry(pos, &mst_state->payloads, next) {
> > + if (pos != payload &&
> > + pos->vc_start_slot > payload->vc_start_slot &&
> > + pos->vc_start_slot < next_payload_vc_start)
> > + next_payload_vc_start = pos->vc_start_slot;
> > + }
> > +
> > + time_slots_to_remove = next_payload_vc_start -
> > +payload->vc_start_slot;
>
> Imo, the intuitive way would be to pass the old payload state to this function -
> which already contains the required time_slots param - and refactor things
> instead moving vc_start_slot from the payload state to mgr suggested by Ville
> earlier.
>
> --Imre
Hi Imre,
Thanks for your feedback!
I understand it's functionally correct. But IMHO, it's still a bit conceptually
different between the time slot in old state and the time slot in current payload
table. My thought is the time slot at the moment when we are removing the
payload would be a better choice. And with this, we can also simplify some
codes. Especially remove workaround in amd driver. In fact, DRM mst code
maintains the payload table and all the time slot info is in it already. We don't
really have to pass a new parameter.
>
> > /* Remove local payload allocation */
> > list_for_each_entry(pos, &mst_state->payloads, next) {
> > - if (pos != new_payload && pos->vc_start_slot > new_payload-
> >vc_start_slot)
> > - pos->vc_start_slot -= old_payload->time_slots;
> > + if (pos != payload && pos->vc_start_slot > payload-
> >vc_start_slot)
> > + pos->vc_start_slot -= time_slots_to_remove;
> > }
> > - new_payload->vc_start_slot = -1;
> > + payload->vc_start_slot = -1;
> >
> > mgr->payload_count--;
> > - mgr->next_start_slot -= old_payload->time_slots;
> > + mgr->next_start_slot -= time_slots_to_remove;
> >
> > - if (new_payload->delete)
> > - drm_dp_mst_put_port_malloc(new_payload->port);
> > + if (payload->delete)
> > + drm_dp_mst_put_port_malloc(payload->port);
> >
> > - new_payload->payload_allocation_status =
> DRM_DP_MST_PAYLOAD_ALLOCATION_NONE;
> > + payload->payload_allocation_status =
> > +DRM_DP_MST_PAYLOAD_ALLOCATION_NONE;
> > }
--
Regards,
Wayne
