[PATCH v7 12/13] drm/exynos: atomic dpms support

[Gustavo Padovan]

Hi Inki,

2015-05-27 Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com>:

> Hi Gustavo,
> 
> On 2015년 05월 23일 00:40, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan at collabora.co.uk>
> > 
> > Run dpms operations through the atomic intefaces. This basically removes
> > the .dpms() callback from econders and crtcs and use .disable() and
> > .enable() to turn the crtc on and off.
> > 
> > v2: Address comments by Joonyoung:
> > 	- make hdmi code call ->disable() instead of ->dpms()
> > 	- do not use WARN_ON on crtc enable/disable
> > 
> > v3: - Fix build failure after the hdmi change in v2
> >     - Change dpms helper of ptn3460 bridge
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan at collabora.co.uk>
> > Reviewed-by: Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim at samsung.com>
> > Tested-by: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi at math.uni-bielefeld.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c             |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c            |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c     |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c    | 95 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dpi.c     |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h     |  4 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c     |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c | 27 ++------
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_vidi.c    |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c        |  6 +-
> >  10 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
> > index b604326..d686235 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ps8622.c
> > @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static void ps8622_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct drm_connector_funcs ps8622_connector_funcs = {
> > -	.dpms = drm_helper_connector_dpms,
> > +	.dpms = drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms,
> >  	.fill_modes = drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes,
> >  	.detect = ps8622_detect,
> >  	.destroy = ps8622_connector_destroy,
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
> > index 8ed3617..260bc9f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c
> > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static void ptn3460_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static struct drm_connector_funcs ptn3460_connector_funcs = {
> > -	.dpms = drm_helper_connector_dpms,
> > +	.dpms = drm_atomic_helper_connector_dpms,
> >  	.fill_modes = drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes,
> >  	.detect = ptn3460_detect,
> >  	.destroy = ptn3460_connector_destroy,
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
> > index 195fe60..c9995b1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
> > @@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ static void exynos_dp_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
> >  }
> >  
> 
> [--snip--]
> 
> >  
> >  static struct drm_crtc_helper_funcs exynos_crtc_helper_funcs = {
> > -	.dpms		= exynos_drm_crtc_dpms,
> > -	.prepare	= exynos_drm_crtc_prepare,
> > -	.commit		= exynos_drm_crtc_commit,
> > +	.enable		= exynos_drm_crtc_enable,
> > +	.disable	= exynos_drm_crtc_disable,
> >  	.mode_fixup	= exynos_drm_crtc_mode_fixup,
> >  	.mode_set	= drm_helper_crtc_mode_set,
> >  	.mode_set_nofb	= exynos_drm_crtc_mode_set_nofb,
> 
> I think it'd be better to use atomic_flush callback to enable global dma
> like commit callback did. Is there any reason that you don't use
> atomic_begin and atomic_flush callbacks?
> 
> atomic relevant codes I looked into do as follows,
> 
> atomic_begin();
> 
> atomic_update();  /* this will call win_commit callback to set a overlay
> relevant registers and enable its dma channel. */
> 
> atomic_flush();
> 
> So atomic overlay updating between atomic_begin() ~ atomic_flush() will
> be guaranteed.

I think we can go down that road, but I'd suggest we push the atomic
patches v8 (with the lastest comments from Joonyoung fixed) and then 
work on the change you are proposing as a follow-up together with the 
other improvements for atomic I already have queued here. This way
we don't take the risk of missing one more merge window.

	Gustavo