Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 10 May 2017 17:14:33 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:41:09PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:00:13PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > > Introduce a new helper function which calls mode_valid() callback
> > > for all bridges in an encoder chain.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jose Abreu <joab...@synopsys.com>
> > > Cc: Carlos Palminha <palmi...@synopsys.com>
> > > Cc: Alexey Brodkin <abrod...@synopsys.com>
> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
> > > Cc: Dave Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>
> > > Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.ha...@samsung.com>
> > > Cc: Archit Taneja <arch...@codeaurora.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > > index 86a7637..dc8cdfe 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > > @@ -206,6 +206,39 @@ bool drm_bridge_mode_fixup(struct drm_bridge
> > > *bridge,
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_mode_fixup);
> > >
> > > /**
> > >
> > > + * drm_bridge_mode_valid - validate the mode against all bridges in the
> > > + * encoder chain.
> > > + * @bridge: bridge control structure
> > > + * @mode: desired mode to be validated
> > > + *
> > > + * Calls &drm_bridge_funcs.mode_valid for all the bridges in the
> > > encoder
> > > + * chain, starting from the first bridge to the last. If at least one
> > > bridge + * does not accept the mode the function returns the error
> > > code.
> > > + *
> > > + * Note: the bridge passed should be the one closest to the encoder.
> > > + *
> > > + * RETURNS:
> > > + * MODE_OK on success, drm_mode_status Enum error code on failure
> > > + */
> > > +enum drm_mode_status drm_bridge_mode_valid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> > > + const struct drm_display_mode
*mode)
> > > +{
> > > + enum drm_mode_status ret = MODE_OK;
> > > +
> > > + if (!bridge)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (bridge->funcs->mode_valid)
> > > + ret = bridge->funcs->mode_valid(bridge, mode);
> > > +
> > > + if (ret != MODE_OK)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + return drm_bridge_mode_valid(bridge->next, mode);
> >
> > Looks like it should be pretty trivial to avoid the recursion.
> >
> > Am I correct in interpreting this that bridges have some kind of
> > a hand rolled linked list implementation? Reusing the standard
> > linked lists would allow you to use list_for_each() etc.
>
> Yeah it's a hand-rolled list, but current hw also has a bridge nesting
> depth of 2, so it really doesn't matter. I guess once we have real long
> chains of bridges we can fix this (and just using list_head sounds like a
> great idea).
Even if not really needed right now, it's a pretty easy cleanup, if Jose has
time to handle it in v3 of this series let's not postpone it ;-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
