On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 02:49:58PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote: > On 03/11, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > IIRC the drm code checks for the atomic_enable callback presence to > > > > figure whenever it should take the atomic or legacy code paths. > > > > > > It should check for drm_driver->mode_config.funcs.atomic_commit for that, > > > see drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(). Anything else should be a bug. > > > > > > Or do you mean the fallback to the old crtc helper prepare/commit > > > callbacks? > > > > Probably the later. There was some reason why I've left in the empty > > bochs_crtc_atomic_enable() callback ... > > Just for checking before I start to work in this patch: > The correct solution should be made atomic_enable and atomic_disable > optional, right? I should do it, and check if Bochs driver really needs > bochs_crtc_atomic_enable after my change, right? Yup. I just tried to remember why we haven't done this yet, but I think that was a patch to make crtc->helper_funcs optional. And that doesn't make sense imo, since if your crtc doesn't do anything then you don't really have an atomic driver :-) And if there's ever a legit use case for this, then that drive probably shouldn't use the atomic helpers ... But making crtc_helper_funcs->atomic_enable/disable optional sounds like a good idea. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
