On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:25:50PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:59:24PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 08:35:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > It's kinda pointless to have 2 separate mallocs for these. And when we
> > > > add more per-connector state in the future it's even more pointless.
> > > >
> > > > Right now there's no such thing planned, but both Gustavo's per-crtc
> > > > fence patches, and some nonblocking commit helpers I'm playing around
> > > > with will add more per-crtc stuff. It makes sense to also consolidate
> > > > connectors, just for consistency.
> > > >
> > > > In the future we can use this to store a pointer to the preceeding
> > > > state, making an atomic update entirely free-standing. This will be
> > > > needed to be able to queue them up with a depth > 1.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 27 +++++++++------------------
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 2 +-
> > > > include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 10 +++++-----
> > > > include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 11 +++++++----
> > > > 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > index 3ff1ed7b33db..a6395e9654af 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > @@ -44,7 +44,6 @@
> > > > void drm_atomic_state_default_release(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> > > > {
> > > > kfree(state->connectors);
> > > > - kfree(state->connector_states);
> > > > kfree(state->crtcs);
> > > > kfree(state->crtc_states);
> > > > kfree(state->planes);
> > > > @@ -139,15 +138,15 @@ void drm_atomic_state_default_clear(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> > > > DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("Clearing atomic state %p\n", state);
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < state->num_connector; i++) {
> > > > - struct drm_connector *connector = state->connectors[i];
> > > > + struct drm_connector *connector = state->connectors[i].ptr;
> > >
> > > 'ptr' is not a very good name.
> >
> > Suggestions for something better? I was lacking good inspiration ...
>
> Maybe just 'connector' ?
state->connectors[i].connector is really long, and makes a lot of code
look ugly. "obj" might be a bit better than "ptr" at least. Something
else?
-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
