On 1/14/25 18:34, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/01/2025 13:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:26:25AM +0530, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
>>> Move the bridge pre_enable call before crtc enable, and the bridge
>>> post_disable call after the crtc disable.
>>>
>>> The sequence of enable after this patch will look like:
>>>
>>> bridge[n]_pre_enable
>>> ...
>>> bridge[1]_pre_enable
>>>
>>> crtc_enable
>>> encoder_enable
>>>
>>> bridge[1]_enable
>>> ...
>>> bridge[n]_enable
>>>
>>> And, the disable sequence for the display pipeline will look like:
>>>
>>> bridge[n]_disable
>>> ...
>>> bridge[1]_disable
>>>
>>> encoder_disable
>>> crtc_disable
>>>
>>> bridge[1]_post_disable
>>> ...
>>> bridge[n]_post_disable
>>>
>>> The definition of bridge pre_enable hook says that,
>>> "The display pipe (i.e. clocks and timing signals) feeding this bridge
>>> will not yet be running when this callback is called".
>>>
>>> Since CRTC is also a source feeding the bridge, it should not be enabled
>>> before the bridges in the pipeline are pre_enabled. Fix that by
>>> re-ordering the sequence of bridge pre_enable and bridge post_disable.
>>
>> The patch contains both refactoring of the corresponding functions and
>> changing of the order. Please split it into two separate commits.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <a-bhatia1@xxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <aradhya.bhatia@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 300 +++++++++++++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>>> index 5186d2114a50..ad6290a4a528 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>>> @@ -74,6 +74,12 @@
>>> * also shares the &struct drm_plane_helper_funcs function table
>>> with the plane
>>> * helpers.
>>> */
>>> +
>>> +enum bridge_chain_operation_type {
>>> + DRM_BRIDGE_PRE_ENABLE_OR_POST_DISABLE,
>>> + DRM_BRIDGE_ENABLE_OR_DISABLE,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>> I have mixed feelings towards this approach. I doubt that it actually
>> helps. Would you mind replacing it with just 'bool pre_enable' / 'bool
>> post_disable' arguments?
>
> If my memory serves, I suggested the enum. I don't like it too much
> either. But neither do I like the boolean that much, as this is not a
> yes/no, on/off case... Then again, maybe boolean is fine here, as the
> "off" case is the "normal/default" case so it's still ok-ish.
>
> But this doesn't matter much, I think. It's internal, and can be
> trivially adjusted later.
>
Alright! I will drop the enum reference entirely, and just use the
booleans.
Regards
Aradhya
