Hi Jagan On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 2:31 PM Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? We have already git commit the description in how the patch affects the post_disable. As Dario reported your patch is ok even in our use case. We don't have a real use case as the one you describe. Can we know how you test it in this use case here? Can you test our patches of post_disable? Thanks Michael > > 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.
