[Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/6] drm/i915: Remove (pipe == crtc->index) asummption

[Anshuman Gupta]

On 2020-01-23 at 15:40:57 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 06:56:55PM +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote:
> > we can't have (pipe == crtc->index) assumption in
> > driver in order to support 3 non-contiguous
> > display pipe system.
> > 
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 10 ++++------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > index 878d331b9e8c..afd8d43160c6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > @@ -14070,11 +14070,11 @@ verify_single_dpll_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >  	if (new_crtc_state->hw.active)
> >  		I915_STATE_WARN(!(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask),
> >  				"pll active mismatch (expected pipe %c in active mask 0x%02x)\n",
> > -				pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)), pll->active_mask);
> > +				pipe_name(crtc->pipe), pll->active_mask);
> >  	else
> >  		I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask,
> >  				"pll active mismatch (didn't expect pipe %c in active mask 0x%02x)\n",
> > -				pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)), pll->active_mask);
> > +				pipe_name(crtc->pipe), pll->active_mask);
> >  
> >  	I915_STATE_WARN(!(pll->state.crtc_mask & crtc_mask),
> >  			"pll enabled crtcs mismatch (expected 0x%x in 0x%02x)\n",
> > @@ -14103,10 +14103,10 @@ verify_shared_dpll_state(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >  
> >  		I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask,
> >  				"pll active mismatch (didn't expect pipe %c in active mask)\n",
> > -				pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)));
> > +				pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> >  		I915_STATE_WARN(pll->state.crtc_mask & crtc_mask,
> >  				"pll enabled crtcs mismatch (found %x in enabled mask)\n",
> > -				pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)));
> > +				pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -16485,8 +16485,6 @@ static int intel_crtc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum pipe pipe)
> >  
> >  	intel_color_init(crtc);
> >  
> > -	WARN_ON(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base) != crtc->pipe);
> > -
> 
> The first and second hunks don't really have anything to do with
> each other. Also the WARN_ON() should not be removed until all the
> assumptions are fixed.
True there can be other assumptions as well, there are few, i have come to know
drm_handle_vblank(&dev_priv->drm, pipe) in gen8_de_irq_handler()
drm_wait_one_vblank(&dev_priv->drm, pipe) in intel_wait_for_vblank(),
i will fix these assumptions is next update, are there any other similar kind of
assumption on which u can throw some light to look for?
I am not sure how does above WARN_ON helps to know all such kind of 
assumptions, but it make sense to have it with FIXME.
Thanks,
Anshuman Gupta.
> 
> >  	return 0;
> >  
> >  fail:
> > -- 
> > 2.24.0
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel