On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >>> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@xxxxxxxx; tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx; >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@xxxxxxxxxxxx; >>> >> >> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >>> >> >> >>> that >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >>> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >>> >> >> >>> >>> > object >>> >> >> >>> >>> > into >>> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >>> >> >> >>> >>> following? >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>> >> >> >>> display_ops and >>> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >>> >> >> >>> >> manager >>> >> >> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >>> >> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >> >>> callback >>> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >>> >> >> >>> >> driver >>> >> >> >>> >> with >>> >> >> >>> ctx. >>> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >>> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >>> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >>> >> >> >>> >>> right >>> >> >> >>> >>> thing >>> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >>> >> >> >>> >> you >>> >> >> >>> >> don't >>> >> >> >>> need >>> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >>> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >>> >> >> >>> >>> based >>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >>> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >>> >> >> >>> it's >>> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >>> >> >> >>> >>> > other >>> >> >> >>> framework >>> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >>> >> >> >>> >>> form, >>> >> >> >>> >>> we >>> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >>> >> >> >>> >>> should >>> >> >> >>> >>> just >>> >> >> >>> >>> go >>> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >>> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >>> >> >> >>> >> framework >>> >> >> >>> based >>> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >>> >> >> >>> >> should >>> >> >> >>> >> be >>> >> >> >>> opened. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >>> >> >> >>> > more >>> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >>> >> >> >>> > entirely, >>> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >>> >> >> >>> commits >>> >> >> >>> in >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>> >> >> >>> staging. >>> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >>> >> >> >>> to >>> >> >> >>> doing this. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >>> >> >> >> Can't >>> >> >> >> they be >>> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >>> >> >> >> from >>> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >>> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >>> >> >> > really >>> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >>> >> >> > useful. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >>> >> >> > so >>> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >>> >> >> > directly. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >>> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >>> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >>> >> >> have >>> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >>> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >>> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >>> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >>> >> > framework, >>> >> >>> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >>> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >>> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >>> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >>> > >>> > >>> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >>> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >>> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >>> > >>> >>> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >>> instead. >> >> >> Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this >> wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? >> > > I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has > dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers > include only Exynos drm headers. > >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >>> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >>> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >>> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >>> >> >>> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >>> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >>> > >>> > >>> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >>> >>> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >>> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >>> >> Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation >> would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current >> code as a base. >> > > Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I > don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm > framework directly. > Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you actually have something that uses these drivers outside of drm? So I think we've reached somewhat of an impasse. I'd like to move the driver towards a proper drm driver (ie: no exynos framework/wrapper/whatever), you'd like to keep things separate. So should we create a new exynos driver drivers/drm/gpu/exynos5 to house the drm driver? Sean > Thanks for your opinions. > Inki Dae > >> Stéphane >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Inki Dae >>> >>> > >>> > Stéphane >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> If so, That would really be >>> >> horrible. :( >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >>> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >>> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > Stéphane >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >>> >> >> > having >>> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >>> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >>> >> >> > driver, >>> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >>> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >>> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >>> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >>> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >>> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >>> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >>> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >>> >> >> layer. >>> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >>> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >>> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >>> >> >> > just >>> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >>> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >>> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >>> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >>> >> >> >> dependency >>> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >>> >> >> >> lcd >>> >> >> >> class >>> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >>> >> >> >> device >>> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >>> >> >> >> panel >>> >> >> >> drivers >>> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >>> >> >> >> framework is >>> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >>> >> >> >> connector >>> >> >> >> will be >>> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >>> >> >> >> probed: >>> >> >> >> it >>> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >>> >> >> >> lcd >>> >> >> >> panel >>> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >>> >> >> >> encoder >>> >> >> >> and >>> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >>> >> >> >> connector >>> >> >> >> will >>> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >>> >> >> >> implemented >>> >> >> >> in >>> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >>> >> >> >> driver. >>> >> >> >> And >>> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >>> >> >> >> device >>> >> >> >> driver >>> >> >> >> model. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >>> >> >> > we >>> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >>> >> >> > exynos >>> >> >> > driver, not more :) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >>> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >>> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >>> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Sean >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >>> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >>> >> >> >>> and >>> >> >> >>> >>> for >>> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >>> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >>> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >>> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >>> >> >> >>> Generally, >>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >>> >> >> >>> >>> point. >>> >> >> >>> >>> The >>> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >>> >> >> >>> >>> it >>> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >>> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >>> >> >> >>> >> functions, >>> >> >> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >> they >>> >> >> >>> will >>> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>> >> >> >>> driver_data >>> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >>> >> >> >>> >> also >>> >> >> >>> internally >>> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >>> >> >> >>> >> is >>> >> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >> >>> purpose >>> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >>> >> >> >>> > implement >>> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >>> >> >> >>> > manager >>> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >>> >> >> >>> > pointer >>> >> >> >>> > to >>> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >>> >> >> >>> > IMO, >>> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >>> >> >> >>> > hook >>> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >>> >> >> >>> > since >>> >> >> >>> > we >>> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Sean >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >>> >> >> >>> >> again. >>> >> >> >>> >> So I >>> >> >> >>> will fix >>> >> >> >>> >> it. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>> >> >> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >>> >> >> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>> >> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > dri-devel mailing list >>> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
