On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:13:53AM -0700, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:08:57PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:50:34PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > Instead of plane->fb (which we're going to deprecate for atomic drivers)
> > > we need to look at plane->state->fb. The maze of code leading to
> > > vmw_kms_helper_dirty() wasn't particularly clear, but my analysis
> > > concluded that the calls originating from
> > > vmw_*_primary_plane_atomic_update()
> > > all pass in the crtc which means we'll never end up in this branch
> > > of the function. All other callers use drm_modeset_lock_all() somewhere
> > > higher up, which means accessing plane->state is safe. We'll toss in
> > > a lockdep assert to catch wrongdoers.
> > >
> > > v2: Drop the comment and make the code do what it did before (Thomas)
> > >
> > > Cc: Deepak Rawat <dra...@vmware.com>
> > > Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellst...@vmware.com>
> > > Cc: Sinclair Yeh <s...@vmware.com>
> > > Cc: VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintai...@vmware.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 9 ++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> > > index 2e4c38bb846d..5417eb1b486e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> > > @@ -2326,9 +2326,12 @@ int vmw_kms_helper_dirty(struct vmw_private
> > > *dev_priv,
> > > } else {
> > > list_for_each_entry(crtc, &dev_priv->dev->mode_config.crtc_list,
> > > head) {
> > > - if (crtc->primary->fb != &framebuffer->base)
> > > - continue;
> > > - units[num_units++] = vmw_crtc_to_du(crtc);
> > > + struct drm_plane *plane = crtc->primary;
> > > +
> > > + lockdep_assert_held(&plane->mutex);
> >
> > kbuild test robot told me
> > >> include/linux/lockdep.h:347:52: error: 'struct drm_modeset_lock' has
> > >> no member named 'dep_map'
> > #define lockdep_is_held(lock) lock_is_held(&(lock)->dep_map)
> >
> >
> > Maybe I'll just drop the asserts? Or do people really want them
> > (in which case I gues I need to dig out the underlying mutex)?
>
> Eitherway is fine with me.
I just dropped them, and pushe the series to drm-misc-next. Thanks for
the reviews everyone.
Fingers crossed that no new uses of the legacy pointers have been added
in the meantime. A quick grep didn't seem to catch anything at least,
but selective blindness can occur sometimes. So just holler if
anything broke...
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
