Hi Dario, On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:57 PM Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Dave and Jagan, > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:39 PM Dave Stevenson > <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Dario > > > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 10:54, Dario Binacchi > > <dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The patch fixes the code for finding the next bridge with the > > > "pre_enable_prev_first" flag set to false. In case this condition is > > > not verified, i. e. there is no subsequent bridge with the flag set to > > > false, the whole bridge list is traversed, invalidating the "next" > > > variable. > > > > > > The use of a new iteration variable (i. e. "iter") ensures that the value > > > of the "next" variable is not invalidated. > > > > We already have https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/529288/ that > > has been reviewed (but not applied) to resolve this. What does this > > version do differently and why? > > My patches only affect drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable(), whereas > Jagan's patch affects both > drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable() and drm_atomic_bridge_chain_pre_enable(). > I tested Jagan's patch on my system with success and I reviewed with > Michael Trimarchi the > drm_atomic_bridge_chain_pre_enable() fixing and we think it's okay. > We also believe that our changes to post_disable() are better, as we > set the 'next' variable only when required, > and the code is more optimized since the list_is_last() is not called > within the loop. > Would it be possible to use Jagan's patch for fixing > drm_atomic_bridge_chain_pre_enable() and mine for > fixing drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable()? > Can you please share the post-disabled bridge chain list with the below example before and after your change? Example: - Panel - Bridge 1 - Bridge 2 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 3 - Bridge 4 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 5 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 6 - Encoder Thanks, Jagan.
