On 02/22/2017 05:31 AM, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 15:37 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
On 02/16/2017 05:43 AM, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 16:53 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 12:08 PM, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
It is necessary to track states for objects other than connector, crtc
and plane for atomic modesets. But adding objects like DP MST link
bandwidth to drm_atomic_state would mean that a non-core object will be
modified by the core helper functions for swapping and clearing
it's state. So, lets add void * objects and helper functions that operate
on void * types to keep these objects and states private to the core.
Drivers can then implement specific functions to swap and clear states.
The other advantage having just void * for these objects in
drm_atomic_state is that objects of different types can be managed in the
same state array.
v2: Added docs and new iterator to filter private objects (Daniel)
Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandi...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 5 ++
include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 164 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
index a567310..1a9ffe8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ void drm_atomic_state_default_release(struct drm_atomic_state
*state)
kfree(state->connectors);
kfree(state->crtcs);
kfree(state->planes);
+ kfree(state->private_objs);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_state_default_release);
@@ -184,6 +185,20 @@ void drm_atomic_state_default_clear(struct
drm_atomic_state *state)
state->planes[i].ptr = NULL;
state->planes[i].state = NULL;
}
+
+ for (i = 0; i < state->num_private_objs; i++) {
+ void *private_obj = state->private_objs[i].obj;
+ void *obj_state = state->private_objs[i].obj_state;
+
+ if (!private_obj)
+ continue;
+
+ state->private_objs[i].funcs->destroy_state(obj_state);
+ state->private_objs[i].obj = NULL;
+ state->private_objs[i].obj_state = NULL;
+ state->private_objs[i].funcs = NULL;
+ }
+
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_state_default_clear);
@@ -974,6 +989,59 @@ static void drm_atomic_plane_print_state(struct
drm_printer *p,
}
/**
+ * drm_atomic_get_private_obj_state - get private object state
+ * @state: global atomic state
+ * @obj: private object to get the state for
+ * @funcs: pointer to the struct of function pointers that identify the object
+ * type
+ *
+ * This function returns the private object state for the given private object,
+ * allocating the state if needed. It does not grab any locks as the caller is
+ * expected to care of any required locking.
+ *
+ * RETURNS:
+ *
+ * Either the allocated state or the error code encoded into a pointer.
+ */
+void *
+drm_atomic_get_private_obj_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state, void *obj,
+ const struct drm_private_state_funcs *funcs)
+{
+ int index, num_objs, i;
+ size_t size;
+ struct __drm_private_objs_state *arr;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < state->num_private_objs; i++)
+ if (obj == state->private_objs[i].obj &&
+ state->private_objs[i].obj_state)
+ return state->private_objs[i].obj_state;
Comparing this func to drm_atomic_get_plane_state/drm_atomic_get_crtc_state, it
doesn't seem to call drm_modeset_lock if the obj_state doesn't already exist. I
don't understand the locking stuff toowell, I just noticed this difference when
comparing this approach with what is done in the msm kms driver (where we
have subclassed drm_atomic_state to msm_kms_state).
Thanks,
Archit
The caller is expected to take care of any required locking. The
driver-private objects are opaque from core's pov, so the core is not
aware of necessary locks for that object type.
I had a look at the rest of the series, and I couldn't easily understand
whether the caller code protects the MST related driver private state. Is
it expected to be protect via the drm_mode_config.connection_mutex lock?
Thanks,
Archit
That's right, the connection_mutex takes care of the locking for the MST
private state. I can add that as a comment to the caller's (MST helper)
kernel doc with a
WARN_ON(!drm_modeset_is_locked(&dev->mode_config.connection_mutex));
That would be nice to have.
In the comment: "It does not grab any locks as the caller is expected to
care of any required locking.", you could maybe be a bit more specific
and rephrase it as "the caller needs to grab the &drm_modeset_lock
responsible for protecting the private object state"
Thanks,
Archit
-DK
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
