On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:41:22AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 11-05-17 om 11:23 schreef Daniel Vetter: > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:28:43AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> We shouldn't inspect crtc->state, instead grab the crtc state. > >> At this point the hw state verifier should be able to run even if > >> crtc->state has been updated (which cannot currently happen). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > > > pll state checking still looks at ->state directly, we might want to port > > that to the new private obj helpers perhaps, with the same new/old > > iterators? > That might be an excellent idea to do in the future. :) > > If I look at it though it's race safe in the current design, > but not necessarily against multiple nonblocking modesets, > which should probably be addressed at some point. I looked at this more from the pov of unifying state handling across all blocks. If everything works roughly the same, it's much easier to understand. And I do kinda like DK's private state stuff, that should help in aligning the various internal bits we have (like shared dpll, wms, and all that). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
