On 2022-12-14 20:56:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 01:22, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > In the event that the topology requests resources that have not been
> > created by the system (because they are typically not represented in
> > dpu_mdss_cfg ^1), the resource(s) in global_state (in this case DSC
> > blocks) remain NULL but will still be returned out of
> > dpu_rm_get_assigned_resources, where the caller expects to get an array
> > containing num_blks valid pointers (but instead gets these NULLs).
> >
> > To prevent this from happening, where null-pointer dereferences
> > typically result in a hard-to-debug platform lockup, num_blks shouldn't
> > increase past NULL blocks and will print an error and break instead.
> > After all, max_blks represents the static size of the maximum number of
> > blocks whereas the actual amount varies per platform.
> >
> > In the specific case of DSC initial resource allocation should behave
> > more like LMs and CTLs where NULL resources are skipped. The current
> > hardcoded mapping of DSC blocks should be loosened separately as DPU
> > 5.0.0 introduced a crossbar where DSC blocks can be "somewhat" freely
> > bound to any PP and CTL, but that hardcoding currently means that we
> > will return an error when the topology reserves a DSC that isn't
> > available, instead of looking for the next free one.
> >
> > ^1: which can happen after a git rebase ended up moving additions to
> > _dpu_cfg to a different struct which has the same patch context.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> > index 73b3442e7467..dcbf03d2940a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> > @@ -496,6 +496,11 @@ static int _dpu_rm_reserve_dsc(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> >
> > /* check if DSC required are allocated or not */
> > for (i = 0; i < num_dsc; i++) {
> > + if (!rm->dsc_blks[i]) {
> > + DPU_ERROR("DSC %d does not exist\n", i);
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (global_state->dsc_to_enc_id[i]) {
> > DPU_ERROR("DSC %d is already allocated\n", i);
> > return -EIO;
> > @@ -660,6 +665,11 @@ int dpu_rm_get_assigned_resources(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> > blks_size, enc_id);
> > break;
> > }
> > + if (!hw_blks[i]) {
> > + DPU_ERROR("No more resource %d available to assign to enc %d\n",
> > + type, enc_id);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > blks[num_blks++] = hw_blks[i];
> > }
> >
>
> These two chunks should come as two separate patches, each having it's
> own Fixes tag.
Ack. They are indeed addressing different issues (with the same
outcome) with differing "backportability". Will address in v2, thanks
for pointing it out (and missing a Fixes: in the first place, of which
we already have so many...).
- Marijn
