On 5/2/2023 4:54 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 03/05/2023 02:51, Abhinav Kumar wrote:


On 4/30/2023 4:57 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
The function dpu_encoder_get_wb() returns controller_id if the
corresponding WB is present in the catalog. We can inline this function
and rely on dpu_rm_get_wb() returning NULL for indices for which the
WB is not present on the device.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@linaro.org>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c | 24 ++-------------------
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
index 4c85cbb030e4..507ff3f88c67 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
@@ -1277,22 +1277,6 @@ static enum dpu_intf dpu_encoder_get_intf(const struct dpu_mdss_cfg *catalog,
      return INTF_MAX;
  }
-static enum dpu_wb dpu_encoder_get_wb(const struct dpu_mdss_cfg *catalog,
-        enum dpu_intf_type type, u32 controller_id)
-{
-    int i = 0;
-
-    if (type != INTF_WB)
-        return WB_MAX;
-
-    for (i = 0; i < catalog->wb_count; i++) {
-        if (catalog->wb[i].id == controller_id)
-            return catalog->wb[i].id;
-    }
-
-    return WB_MAX;
-}
-
  void dpu_encoder_vblank_callback(struct drm_encoder *drm_enc,
          struct dpu_encoder_phys *phy_enc)
  {
@@ -2261,7 +2245,6 @@ static int dpu_encoder_setup_display(struct dpu_encoder_virt *dpu_enc,
           */
          u32 controller_id = disp_info->h_tile_instance[i];
          enum dpu_intf intf_idx;
-        enum dpu_wb wb_idx;
          if (disp_info->num_of_h_tiles > 1) {
              if (i == 0)
@@ -2279,14 +2262,11 @@ static int dpu_encoder_setup_display(struct dpu_encoder_virt *dpu_enc,
                                  disp_info->intf_type,
                                  controller_id);
-        wb_idx = dpu_encoder_get_wb(dpu_kms->catalog,
-                disp_info->intf_type, controller_id);
-
          if (intf_idx >= INTF_0 && intf_idx < INTF_MAX)
              phys_params.hw_intf = dpu_rm_get_intf(&dpu_kms->rm, intf_idx);
-        if (wb_idx >= WB_0 && wb_idx < WB_MAX)
-            phys_params.hw_wb = dpu_rm_get_wb(&dpu_kms->rm, wb_idx);
+        if (disp_info->intf_type == INTF_WB && controller_id < WB_MAX)
+            phys_params.hw_wb = dpu_rm_get_wb(&dpu_kms->rm, controller_id);


 From what I see, with https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/534776/?series=117146&rev=1 we are dropping those checks from the RM too, so we are going to rely totally on entering the values correctly in catalog from now on?

Yes. I see no reason to mistrust the kernel data itself.

Alright, if thats the overall plan, this change itself is fine.

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhin...@quicinc.com>


          if (!phys_params.hw_intf && !phys_params.hw_wb) {
              DPU_ERROR_ENC(dpu_enc, "no intf or wb block assigned at idx: %d\n", i);

Reply via email to