[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 1/5] drm/atomic: Fix atomic helpers to use the new iterator macros, v2.

[Maarten Lankhorst]

Op 01-03-17 om 01:49 schreef Laurent Pinchart:
> Hi Maarten,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Thursday 16 Feb 2017 15:47:06 Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> There are new iterator macros that annotate whether the new or old
>> state should be used. This is better than using a state that depends on
>> whether it's called before or after swap. For clarity, also rename the
>> variables from $obj_state to (old,new)_$obj_state as well.
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Use old/new_*_state for variable names as much as possible. (pinchartl)
>> - Expand commit message.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 431 +++++++++++++++++----------------
>>  1 file changed, 222 insertions(+), 209 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 9203f3e933f7..7d432d9a18cf
>> 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -1929,11 +1926,21 @@ void drm_atomic_helper_cleanup_planes(struct
>> drm_device *dev, struct drm_atomic_state *old_state)
>>  {
>>  	struct drm_plane *plane;
>> -	struct drm_plane_state *plane_state;
>> +	struct drm_plane_state *old_plane_state, *new_plane_state;
>>  	int i;
>>
>> -	for_each_plane_in_state(old_state, plane, plane_state, i) {
>> +	for_each_oldnew_plane_in_state(old_state, plane, old_plane_state,
>> new_plane_state, i) { const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs *funcs;
>> +		struct drm_plane_state *plane_state;
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * This might be called before swapping when commit is 
> aborted,
>> +		 * in which case we have to free the new state.
> s/free/cleanup/
>
> Apart from that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
>
> You will however need to rebase the series on top of the latest drm-misc as it 
> conflicts (at compile time) with
Yeah I noticed, patch 1 and 5 are affected, will resend those.

Thanks for the review,
~Maarten