[PATCH v4 06/13] drm/msm/dpu: split dpu_plane_atomic_check()

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 11:53, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/5/2024 4:32 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 02:19, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 3/13/2024 5:02 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > >>> Split dpu_plane_atomic_check() function into two pieces:
> > >>>
> > >>> dpu_plane_atomic_check_nopipe() performing generic checks on the pstate,
> > >>> without touching the associated pipe,
> > >>>
> > >>> and
> > >>>
> > >>> dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipes(), which takes into account used pipes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>    drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 184 ++++++++++++++--------
> > >>>    1 file changed, 117 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> > >>>

> > >>> +     if (new_plane_state->crtc)
> > >>> +             crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state,
> > >>> +                                                        new_plane_state->crtc);
> > >>> +
> > >>> +     if (pdpu->pipe != SSPP_NONE) {
> > >>
> > >> This check was not present iirc, why did you have to add this?
> > >> RM will return the same SSPP unless freed. So why this additional check?
> > >
> > > If pdpu->pipe is not SSPP_NONE, then virtual planes are disabled and
> > > there is a fixed 1:1 relationship between planes and SSPP blocks.
> > >
> >
> > True, pdpu->pipe is currently assigned in dpu_plane_init(), so we will
> > always be hitting this condition.
> >
> > Perhaps the patches later on are changing that, so shouldnt this part
> > come along with those?
>
> Ack, I'll move it to patch 5.

Patch 8, of course.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry