[PATCH 0/8] Refactor DC atomic commit and gamma

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 05:23:53PM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
> On 2017-02-14 04:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:26:22AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
> > > Resending with CC to dri-devel as per Alex's suggestions. This
> > > might be of interest to a wider audience.
> > > 
> > > These patches are first steps of addressing some of the problems
> > > in DC's atomic implementation. Please take a look and provide
> > > feedback if possible. Our hope is that we can start setting a
> > > direction on fixing up DC to do atomic correctly and lay the
> > > groundwork for moving past the midlayer.
> > > 
> > > THe biggest patch here is Andrey's work to bring atomic_commit
> > > in line with the atomic helpers instead of rolling our own. We
> > > got atomic_commmit_tail now and things appear to work correctly
> > > with this change. It allowed us to clean up some of the commit
> > > code, but there's still a lot left.
> > > 
> > > The second important patch is fixing up our gamma implementation
> > > and correct the use of crtc_set_property and atomic_set_properties.
> > > 
> > > Beyond that there's some minor cleanup and support patches for
> > > the above change.
> > > 
> > > The whole DC tree with these patches and rebased on drm-next a couple
> > > days ago can be found at
> > > 
> > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~hwentland/linux/log/?h=dc-drm-next-atomic
> > > 
> > > Known issue:
> > >   - corruption on one display in two-display setup
> > 
> > Props to amd for starting to submit core stuff and critical driver bits
> > for review, but since these are incremental patches a bit hard to
> > review&comment ... Not sure what best to do, since I can't really justify
> > to my boss that I constantly look at the entire amdgpu-dal branch either.
> > 
> > Probably best if you folks ping me and others on irc with questions
> > directly, and then I try to sometimes take a look at the end result.
> > Probably best to wait until you've worked down the todo list for an area
> > though.
> > -Daniel
> > 
> 
> Makes sense. We'll bug you on IRC if we have any direct questions. Thanks
> for all the feedback to Andrey and steering some of the core work in a good
> direction, like the private atomic struct. I'm working on picking that one
> up next.
> 
> A lot of these changes are very much incremental. A lot of work here and we
> don't want to break things along the way.

Yeah, very much makes sense to do it incrementally. And I think it's
moving in the rigth direction overall.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch