On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 02:44:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:00:50PM +0100, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
> > Add support for the drm_panic module, which displays a user-friendly
> > message to the screen when a kernel panic occurs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c
> > index 7ce1c4617675..6dd2afee84d4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > #include <drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h>
> > #include <drm/drm_managed.h>
> > #include <drm/drm_modeset_helper_vtables.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_panic.h>
> > #include <drm/drm_probe_helper.h>
> >
> > #define DRIVER_NAME "simpledrm"
> > @@ -985,6 +986,19 @@ static struct simpledrm_device *simpledrm_device_create(struct drm_driver *drv,
> > return sdev;
> > }
> >
> > +static int simpledrm_get_scanout_buffer(struct drm_device *dev,
> > + struct drm_scanout_buffer *sb)
> > +{
> > + struct simpledrm_device *sdev = simpledrm_device_of_dev(dev);
>
> So I guess simpledrm is the reason why the get_scanout_buffer hook is at
> the device level and not at the plane level. Even from the few drivers you
> have in your series it seems very much the exception, so I'm not sure
> whether that's the best design.
>
> I guess we'll know when we see the plane iterator code with the right
> locking, whether it's ok to have that in driver hooks or it's better to
> pull it out into shared code.
Wouldn't the CRTC level be better than the planes?
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
