On 1/14/25 22:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:05:56PM +0530, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Whatever you do, I think that we're at a point where the bridge chain
> traversal is complicated enough that we'll want to have tests for all
> cases.
>
I don't think I follow. Which all cases are you referring to?
Regards
Aradhya
