[PATCH v3 12/13] drm/msm/dpu: add atomic private object to dpu kms

[Sean Paul]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 08:20:10PM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
> Subclass drm private state for DPU for handling driver
> specific data. Adds atomic private object and private object
> lock to dpu kms. Provides helper function to retrieve DPU
> private data from current atomic state.
> 
> changes in v2:
> 	- none
> changes in v3:
> 	- rebase on [1]
> 
> [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/seanpaul/dpu-staging/commits/for-next
> 
> Change-Id: Iaab32badff224ffed024e6ef6576efc8b3af3aec
> Signed-off-by: Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka at codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h | 15 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index 7dd6bd2..5e87b9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -1168,10 +1168,59 @@ static int dpu_kms_hw_init(struct msm_kms *kms)
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> +struct dpu_private_state *dpu_get_private_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct msm_drm_private *priv = state->dev->dev_private;
> +	struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(priv->kms);
> +	struct drm_private_state *priv_state;
> +	int rc = 0;
> +
> +	rc = drm_modeset_lock(&dpu_kms->priv_obj_lock, state->acquire_ctx);
> +	if (rc)
> +		return ERR_PTR(rc);
> +
> +	priv_state = drm_atomic_get_private_obj_state(state,
> +			&dpu_kms->priv_obj);
> +	if (IS_ERR(priv_state))
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +	return to_dpu_private_state(priv_state);
> +}
> +
> +static struct drm_private_state *
> +dpu_private_obj_duplicate_state(struct drm_private_obj *obj)
> +{
> +	struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state;
> +
> +	dpu_priv_state = kmemdup(obj->state,
> +			sizeof(*dpu_priv_state), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!dpu_priv_state)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	__drm_atomic_helper_private_obj_duplicate_state(obj,
> +			&dpu_priv_state->base);
> +
> +	return &dpu_priv_state->base;
> +}
> +
> +static void dpu_private_obj_destroy_state(struct drm_private_obj *obj,
> +				      struct drm_private_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state = to_dpu_private_state(state);
> +
> +	kfree(dpu_priv_state);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct drm_private_state_funcs priv_obj_funcs = {
> +	.atomic_duplicate_state = dpu_private_obj_duplicate_state,
> +	.atomic_destroy_state = dpu_private_obj_destroy_state,
> +};
> +

All of this copypasta between mdp5 and dpu is pretty icky. Can we do a better
job of sharing code? Perhaps some helpers in msm_atomic to help manage the
priv_obj?

>  struct msm_kms *dpu_kms_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct msm_drm_private *priv;
>  	struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms;
> +	struct dpu_private_state *dpu_priv_state;
>  	int irq;
>  
>  	if (!dev || !dev->dev_private) {
> @@ -1189,6 +1238,18 @@ struct msm_kms *dpu_kms_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>  	}
>  	dpu_kms->base.irq = irq;
>  
> +	/* Initialize private obj's */
> +	drm_modeset_lock_init(&dpu_kms->priv_obj_lock);
> +
> +	dpu_priv_state = kzalloc(sizeof(*dpu_priv_state), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!dpu_priv_state)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +
> +	drm_atomic_private_obj_init(&dpu_kms->priv_obj,
> +				    &dpu_priv_state->base,
> +				    &priv_obj_funcs);
> +
>  	return &dpu_kms->base;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h
> index 66d4666..2579c983 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h
> @@ -145,6 +145,9 @@ struct dpu_kms {
>  	struct dpu_hw_vbif *hw_vbif[VBIF_MAX];
>  	struct dpu_hw_mdp *hw_mdp;
>  
> +	struct drm_modeset_lock priv_obj_lock;
> +	struct drm_private_obj priv_obj;
> +
>  	bool has_danger_ctrl;
>  
>  	struct platform_device *pdev;
> @@ -152,12 +155,24 @@ struct dpu_kms {
>  	struct dss_module_power mp;
>  };
>  
> +struct dpu_private_state {
> +	struct drm_private_state base;
> +};
> +
>  struct vsync_info {
>  	u32 frame_count;
>  	u32 line_count;
>  };
>  
>  #define to_dpu_kms(x) container_of(x, struct dpu_kms, base)
> +#define to_dpu_private_state(x) container_of(x, struct dpu_private_state, base)

Do we really need this? It seems like we shouldn't have _that_ many structs
containing dpu_private_state that we need the generic macro.

> +
> +/**
> + * dpu_get_private_state - get dpu private state from atomic state
> + * @state: drm atomic state
> + * Return: pointer to dpu private state object
> + */
> +struct dpu_private_state *dpu_get_private_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
>  
>  /* get struct msm_kms * from drm_device * */
>  #define ddev_to_msm_kms(D) ((D) && (D)->dev_private ? \
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> 

-- 
Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS