On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:53 PM Maaz Mombasawala <maaz.mombasaw...@broadcom.com> wrote: > > On 4/2/24 16:28, Zack Rusin wrote: > > > > @@ -541,6 +518,8 @@ static int vmw_ldu_init(struct vmw_private *dev_priv, > > unsigned unit) > > dev_priv->implicit_placement_property, > > 1); > > > > + vmw_du_init(&ldu->base); > > + > > return 0; > > > > err_free_unregister: > > > @@ -905,6 +900,9 @@ static int vmw_sou_init(struct vmw_private *dev_priv, > > unsigned unit) > > dev->mode_config.suggested_x_property, 0); > > drm_object_attach_property(&connector->base, > > dev->mode_config.suggested_y_property, 0); > > + > > + vmw_du_init(&sou->base); > > + > > return 0; > > > > err_free_unregister: > > > @@ -1575,6 +1576,9 @@ static int vmw_stdu_init(struct vmw_private > > *dev_priv, unsigned unit) > > dev->mode_config.suggested_x_property, 0); > > drm_object_attach_property(&connector->base, > > dev->mode_config.suggested_y_property, 0); > > + > > + vmw_du_init(&stdu->base); > > + > > return 0; > > > > err_free_unregister: > > Shouldn't calls to vmw_du_init() be behind an if(vkms_enabled) condition?
So the vmw_du_init is supposed to initialize the base, so that's unconditional. To match the unconditional vmw_du_cleanup. There's an argument to be made whether both of those should unconditionally call vmw_vkms_crtc_init and vmw_vkms_crtc_cleanup. My opinion was that they're not doing anything costly and just initialize members and having the members of vmw_display_unit initialized whether vkms is enabled or not still makes sense. z
