[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/6] drm/i915: Give meaningful names to all the planes

[Emil Velikov]

Hi Ville,

On 12 November 2015 at 16:52,  <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>
> Let's name our planes in a way that makes sense wrt. the spec:
> - skl+ -> "plane 1A", "plane 2A", "plane 1C", "cursor A" etc.
> - g4x+ -> "primary A", "primary B", "sprite A", "cursor C" etc.
> - pre-g4x -> "plane A", "cursor B" etc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 2b5e81a..82b2f58 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -13788,7 +13788,15 @@ static void intel_finish_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>  void intel_plane_destroy(struct drm_plane *plane)
>  {
>         struct intel_plane *intel_plane = to_intel_plane(plane);
> +       char *name;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * drm_plane_cleanup() zeroes the structure, so
> +        * need an extra dance to avoid leaking the name.
> +        */
> +       name = plane->name;
>         drm_plane_cleanup(plane);
> +       kfree(name);
>         kfree(intel_plane);
>  }
>
> @@ -13838,6 +13846,21 @@ static struct drm_plane *intel_primary_plane_create(struct drm_device *dev,
>         if (HAS_FBC(dev) && INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 4)
>                 primary->plane = !pipe;
>
> +       if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
> +               primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "plane 1%c",
> +                                              pipe_name(pipe));
> +       else if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 5 || IS_G4X(dev))
> +               primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "primary %c",
> +                                              pipe_name(pipe));
> +       else
> +               primary->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "plane %c",
> +                                              plane_name(primary->plane));
> +       if (!primary->base.name) {
> +               kfree(state);
> +               kfree(primary);
> +               return NULL;
Worth adding a label and doing all the teardown there ? (same goes for
the rest of the patch)

> +       }
> +
>         if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) {
>                 intel_primary_formats = skl_primary_formats;
>                 num_formats = ARRAY_SIZE(skl_primary_formats);
> @@ -13987,6 +14010,14 @@ static struct drm_plane *intel_cursor_plane_create(struct drm_device *dev,
>         cursor->commit_plane = intel_commit_cursor_plane;
>         cursor->disable_plane = intel_disable_cursor_plane;
>
> +       cursor->base.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "cursor %c",
> +                                     pipe_name(pipe));
> +       if (!cursor->base.name) {
> +               kfree(state);
> +               kfree(cursor);
> +               return NULL;
> +       }
> +
>         drm_universal_plane_init(dev, &cursor->base, 0,
>                                  &intel_plane_funcs,
>                                  intel_cursor_formats,
> @@ -14113,9 +14144,9 @@ static void intel_crtc_init(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe)
>
>  fail:
>         if (primary)
> -               drm_plane_cleanup(primary);
> +               intel_plane_destroy(primary);
>         if (cursor)
> -               drm_plane_cleanup(cursor);
> +               intel_plane_destroy(cursor);
Something feels strange here. We are either leaking memory before or
we'll end up with double free after your patch. Worth
checking/mentioning in the commit message ?

Regards,
Emil