On Mon, 2022-08-08 at 10:02 +0000, Lin, Wayne wrote:
> [Public]
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lyude Paul <ly...@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:28 AM
> > To: Lin, Wayne <wayne....@amd.com>; dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org;
> > nouv...@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>; Zuo, Jerry
> > <jerry....@amd.com>; Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>; Imre Deak
> > <imre.d...@intel.com>; Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>; Sean Paul
> > <s...@poorly.run>; Wentland, Harry <harry.wentl...@amd.com>; Li, Sun
> > peng (Leo) <sunpeng...@amd.com>; Siqueira, Rodrigo
> > <rodrigo.sique...@amd.com>; Deucher, Alexander
> > <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>; Koenig, Christian
> > <christian.koe...@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui <xinhui....@amd.com>; David
> > Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>; Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch>; Jani Nikula
> > <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com>; Joonas Lahtinen
> > <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>; Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>;
> > Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com>; Ben Skeggs
> > <bske...@redhat.com>; Karol Herbst <kher...@redhat.com>; Kazlauskas,
> > Nicholas <nicholas.kazlaus...@amd.com>; Li, Roman
> > <roman...@amd.com>; Shih, Jude <jude.s...@amd.com>; Simon Ser
> > <cont...@emersion.fr>; Lakha, Bhawanpreet
> > <bhawanpreet.la...@amd.com>; Mikita Lipski <mikita.lip...@amd.com>;
> > Claudio Suarez <c...@net-c.es>; Chen, Ian <ian.c...@amd.com>; Colin Ian
> > King <colin.k...@intel.com>; Wu, Hersen <hersenxs...@amd.com>; Liu,
> > Wenjing <wenjing....@amd.com>; Lei, Jun <jun....@amd.com>; Strauss,
> > Michael <michael.stra...@amd.com>; Ma, Leo <hanghong...@amd.com>;
> > Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de>; José Roberto de Souza
> > <jose.so...@intel.com>; He Ying <heyin...@huawei.com>; Anshuman
> > Gupta <anshuman.gu...@intel.com>; Andi Shyti
> > <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com>; Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.di...@intel.com>;
> > Juston Li <juston...@intel.com>; Sean Paul <seanp...@chromium.org>;
> > Fernando Ramos <green...@u92.eu>; Luo Jiaxing
> > <luojiax...@huawei.com>; Javier Martinez Canillas <javi...@redhat.com>;
> > open list <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>; open list:INTEL DRM DRIVERS
> > <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
> > Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC 18/18] drm/display/dp_mst: Move all payload info
> > into the atomic state
> >
> > On Tue, 2022-07-05 at 09:10 +0000, Lin, Wayne wrote:
> > > > +struct drm_dp_mst_port;
> > > > +
> > > > /* DP MST stream allocation (payload bandwidth number) */
> > > > struct dc_dp_mst_stream_allocation {
> > > > uint8_t vcp_id;
> > > > /* number of slots required for the DP stream in
> > > > * transport packet */
> > > > uint8_t slot_count;
> > > > + /* The MST port this is on, this is used to associate DC MST
> > > > + payloads
> > > > with their
> > > > + * respective DRM payloads allocations, and can be ignored on non-
> > > > Linux.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > Is it necessary for adding this new member? Since this is for setting
> > > the DC HW and not relating to drm.
> >
> > I don't entirely know, honestly. The reasons I did it:
> >
> > * Mapping things from DRM to DC and from DC to DRM is really confusing for
> > outside contributors like myself, so it wasn't even really clear to me if
> > there was another way to reconstruct the DRM context from the spots
> > where
> > we call from DC up to DM (not a typo, see next point).
> > * These DC structs for MST are already layer mixing as far as I can tell,
> > just not in an immediately obvious way. While this struct itself is for
> > DC,
> > there's multiple spots where we pass the DC payload structs down from
> > DM to
> > DC, then pass them back up from DC to DM and have to figure out how to
> > reconstruct the DRM context that we actually need to use the MST helpers
> > from that. So, that kind of further complicates the confusion of where
> > layers should be separated.
> > * As far as I'm aware with C there shouldn't be any issue with adding a
> > pointer to a struct whose contents are undefined. IMHO, this is also
> > preferable to just using void* because then at least you get some hint as
> > to the actual type of the data and avoid the possibility of casting it to
> > the wrong type. So tl;dr, on any platform even outside of Linux with a
> > reasonably compliant compiler this should still build just fine. It'll
> > even
> > give you the added bonus of warning people if they try to access the
> > contents of this member in DC on non-Linux platforms. If void* is
> > preferred
> > though I'm fine with switching it to that.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lyude Paul (she/her) Software Engineer at Red Hat
>
> Hi Lyude,
>
> Thanks for your time!
> I was thinking that our DC just mainly takes care of HW related programming.
> Struct dc_dp_mst_stream_allocation is only used to construct a copy of the
> virtual
> channel payload ID and slots count of payload allocation table determined by
> dm/drm. ID and slots are only things required for programming HW registers.
> I think there shouldn't be any spots to try to construct the DRM context from
> this dc struct since there is no such concept in HW level. Our HW should only
> take care of local DP link and it doesn't have overall topology info.
Looking at the code I wrote again and realizing I slightly misspoke, looking
at the code again I think I probably can drop this. It's likely I just got
totally lost with the DC codebase and thought this was necessary when it
wasn't. Will drop in the respin
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Wayne
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
