On 05/28/2015 02:39 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> On 2015년 05월 28일 05:27, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>> Hi Inki,
>>
>> 2015-05-27 Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> Hi Gustavo,
>>>
>>> On 2015년 05월 23일 00:40, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>>>> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Run dpms operations through the atomic intefaces. This basically removes
>>>> the .dpms() callback from econders and crtcs and use .disable() and
>>>> .enable() to turn the crtc on and off.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Address comments by Joonyoung:
>>>> - make hdmi code call ->disable() instead of ->dpms()
>>>> - do not use WARN_ON on crtc enable/disable
>>>>
>>>> v3: - Fix build failure after the hdmi change in v2
>>>> - Change dpms helper of ptn3460 bridge
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Tested-by: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dpi.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h | 4 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c | 27 ++------
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_vidi.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c | 6 +-
>>>> 10 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
>>>> index b604326..d686235 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
>>>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static void ps8622_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static const struct drm_connector_funcs ps8622_connector_funcs = {
>>>> - .dpms = drm_helper_connector_dpms,
>>>> + .dpms = drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms,
>>>> .fill_modes = drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes,
>>>> .detect = ps8622_detect,
>>>> .destroy = ps8622_connector_destroy,
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
>>>> index 8ed3617..260bc9f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
>>>> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static void ptn3460_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static struct drm_connector_funcs ptn3460_connector_funcs = {
>>>> - .dpms = drm_helper_connector_dpms,
>>>> + .dpms = drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms,
>>>> .fill_modes = drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes,
>>>> .detect = ptn3460_detect,
>>>> .destroy = ptn3460_connector_destroy,
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>>> index 195fe60..c9995b1 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>>> @@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ static void exynos_dp_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> [--snip--]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> static struct drm_crtc_helper_funcs exynos_crtc_helper_funcs = {
>>>> - .dpms = exynos_drm_crtc_dpms,
>>>> - .prepare = exynos_drm_crtc_prepare,
>>>> - .commit = exynos_drm_crtc_commit,
>>>> + .enable = exynos_drm_crtc_enable,
>>>> + .disable = exynos_drm_crtc_disable,
>>>> .mode_fixup = exynos_drm_crtc_mode_fixup,
>>>> .mode_set = drm_helper_crtc_mode_set,
>>>> .mode_set_nofb = exynos_drm_crtc_mode_set_nofb,
>>>
>>> I think it'd be better to use atomic_flush callback to enable global dma
>>> like commit callback did. Is there any reason that you don't use
>>> atomic_begin and atomic_flush callbacks?
>>>
>>> atomic relevant codes I looked into do as follows,
>>>
>>> atomic_begin();
>>>
>>> atomic_update(); /* this will call win_commit callback to set a overlay
>>> relevant registers and enable its dma channel. */
>>>
>>> atomic_flush();
>>>
>>> So atomic overlay updating between atomic_begin() ~ atomic_flush() will
>>> be guaranteed.
>>
>> I think we can go down that road, but I'd suggest we push the atomic
>> patches v8 (with the lastest comments from Joonyoung fixed) and then
>> work on the change you are proposing as a follow-up together with the
>> other improvements for atomic I already have queued here. This way
>> we don't take the risk of missing one more merge window.
>
> We(I and Joonyoung) will have discussion about this patch series. For
> this, we have already started to analyze entire atomic features
> including your patch set so I'd merge it at end of next week according
> to the discussion. I'm not kind of sure yet but I will merge it as long
> as there is no big problem.
>
Actually i agree to opinion of Gustavo and will repost the patchset of
Gustavo with some patches fixed by me.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
