Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:04:12 +0200 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 11/12] drm/atomic-helper: Re-order bridge chain pre-enable and post-disable | | From | Tomi Valkeinen <> |
| |
Hi,
On 14/01/2025 13:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:26:25AM +0530, Aradhya Bhatia wrote: >> Move the bridge pre_enable call before crtc enable, and the bridge >> post_disable call after the crtc disable. >> >> The sequence of enable after this patch will look like: >> >> bridge[n]_pre_enable >> ... >> bridge[1]_pre_enable >> >> crtc_enable >> encoder_enable >> >> bridge[1]_enable >> ... >> bridge[n]_enable >> >> And, the disable sequence for the display pipeline will look like: >> >> bridge[n]_disable >> ... >> bridge[1]_disable >> >> encoder_disable >> crtc_disable >> >> bridge[1]_post_disable >> ... >> bridge[n]_post_disable >> >> The definition of bridge pre_enable hook says that, >> "The display pipe (i.e. clocks and timing signals) feeding this bridge >> will not yet be running when this callback is called". >> >> Since CRTC is also a source feeding the bridge, it should not be enabled >> before the bridges in the pipeline are pre_enabled. Fix that by >> re-ordering the sequence of bridge pre_enable and bridge post_disable. > > The patch contains both refactoring of the corresponding functions and > changing of the order. Please split it into two separate commits. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <a-bhatia1@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <aradhya.bhatia@linux.dev> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 300 +++++++++++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c >> index 5186d2114a50..ad6290a4a528 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c >> @@ -74,6 +74,12 @@ >> * also shares the &struct drm_plane_helper_funcs function table with the plane >> * helpers. >> */ >> + >> +enum bridge_chain_operation_type { >> + DRM_BRIDGE_PRE_ENABLE_OR_POST_DISABLE, >> + DRM_BRIDGE_ENABLE_OR_DISABLE, >> +}; >> + > > I have mixed feelings towards this approach. I doubt that it actually > helps. Would you mind replacing it with just 'bool pre_enable' / 'bool > post_disable' arguments?
If my memory serves, I suggested the enum. I don't like it too much either. But neither do I like the boolean that much, as this is not a yes/no, on/off case... Then again, maybe boolean is fine here, as the "off" case is the "normal/default" case so it's still ok-ish.
But this doesn't matter much, I think. It's internal, and can be trivially adjusted later.
Tomi
|  |