On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:07:30PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 21-10-16 om 16:08 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 03:55:37PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> All of this state should be updated as soon as possible. It shouldn't be
> >> done later because then future updates may not depend on it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> index 69b9e91f071e..ba7f7be3aa4f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> @@ -14341,14 +14341,8 @@ static void intel_atomic_commit_tail(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> >>
> >> drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_dependencies(state);
> >>
> >> - if (intel_state->modeset) {
> >> - memcpy(dev_priv->min_pixclk, intel_state->min_pixclk,
> >> - sizeof(intel_state->min_pixclk));
> >> - dev_priv->active_crtcs = intel_state->active_crtcs;
> >> - dev_priv->atomic_cdclk_freq = intel_state->cdclk;
> >> -
> >> + if (intel_state->modeset)
> >> intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_MODESET);
> >> - }
> >>
> >> for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state, i) {
> >> struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
> >> @@ -14558,6 +14552,13 @@ static int intel_atomic_commit(struct drm_device *dev,
> >> intel_atomic_track_fbs(state);
> >>
> >> drm_atomic_state_get(state);
> >> + if (intel_state->modeset) {
> >> + memcpy(dev_priv->min_pixclk, intel_state->min_pixclk,
> >> + sizeof(intel_state->min_pixclk));
> >> + dev_priv->active_crtcs = intel_state->active_crtcs;
> >> + dev_priv->atomic_cdclk_freq = intel_state->cdclk;
> >> + }
> >> +
> > I'm not very happy about this whole intel_atomic_state <-> dev_priv
> > mess. I think what might be nicer is to have an intel_atomic_device_state
> > or something, which would be part of the top level atomic state just
> > like the other states, and we would just a pointer to the current
> > device state under dev_priv I suppose. This way the top level atomic
> > state would be more like an atomic transaction thing.
> >
> Neither, but I don't see a way to separate it cleanly. The updated members are too random to be put together in a struct.
What do you mean random? Just not related to each other. That doesn't
prohibit from collecting them up in a struct. They're already there
in intel_atomic_state after all.
> And some are used read-only when !modeset, and others are not meant to be used at all in that case. Might even depend
> on the platform.
How is one supposed to tell when they're to be used or not?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
