Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/18] drm/vmwgfx: Remove confused comment from vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:36:31PM +, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 05:15 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:35:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> The core _does_ the call to drm_atomic_commit for you. That's pretty
> >> much the entire point of having the fancy new atomic_set/get_prop
> >> callbacks.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> >> Cc: VMware Graphics
> >> Cc: Sinclair Yeh
> >> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 6 --
> >> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> index 292e48feba83..049bd50eea87 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> @@ -2311,12 +2311,6 @@ vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property(struct
> >> drm_connector *connector,
> >>
> >>if (property == dev_priv->implicit_placement_property) {
> >>vcs->is_implicit = val;
> >> -
> >> - /*
> >> - * We should really be doing a drm_atomic_commit() to
> >> - * commit the new state, but since this doesn't cause
> >> - * an immedate state change, this is probably ok
> >> - */
> >>du->is_implicit = vcs->is_implicit;
> > Maybe the comment is referring to delaying the du->is_implicit
> > assignment to commit time? Otherwise a TEST_ONLY/failed commit
> > will clobber this.
>
> The is_implicit property is made read-only in a vmwgfx recent commit.
> Not sure exactly where it ended up, though. (-fixes, -next or -limbo).
> Need to take a look.
I guess -limbo, since my tree contains both drm-fixes and drm-next. Or at
least they didn't make it to Dave yet.
-Daniel
>
>
> >
> > Hmm. There's both .set_property() and .atomic_set_property()
> > in there. I wonder what that's about.
>
> Probably a leftover. I take it .set_property() is not needed when we
> have .atomic_set_property()?
>
> /Thomas
>
> >
> >>} else {
> >>return -EINVAL;
> >> --
> >> 2.19.0.rc2
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Intel-gfx mailing list
> >> intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fintel-gfxdata=02%7C01%7Cthellstrom%40vmware.com%7C8376824afaaa4e7ebd6808d6287a0a88%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C1%7C0%7C636740901969428557sdata=JDQsTWKhvZAyUnW76dNMFGm0nzJIJjNrSSJYtDuqDlg%3Dreserved=0
>
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/18] drm/vmwgfx: Remove confused comment from vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:36:31PM +, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 05:15 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:35:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> The core _does_ the call to drm_atomic_commit for you. That's pretty
> >> much the entire point of having the fancy new atomic_set/get_prop
> >> callbacks.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> >> Cc: VMware Graphics
> >> Cc: Sinclair Yeh
> >> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 6 --
> >> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> index 292e48feba83..049bd50eea87 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> >> @@ -2311,12 +2311,6 @@ vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property(struct
> >> drm_connector *connector,
> >>
> >>if (property == dev_priv->implicit_placement_property) {
> >>vcs->is_implicit = val;
> >> -
> >> - /*
> >> - * We should really be doing a drm_atomic_commit() to
> >> - * commit the new state, but since this doesn't cause
> >> - * an immedate state change, this is probably ok
> >> - */
> >>du->is_implicit = vcs->is_implicit;
> > Maybe the comment is referring to delaying the du->is_implicit
> > assignment to commit time? Otherwise a TEST_ONLY/failed commit
> > will clobber this.
>
> The is_implicit property is made read-only in a vmwgfx recent commit.
> Not sure exactly where it ended up, though. (-fixes, -next or -limbo).
> Need to take a look.
>
>
> >
> > Hmm. There's both .set_property() and .atomic_set_property()
> > in there. I wonder what that's about.
>
> Probably a leftover. I take it .set_property() is not needed when we
> have .atomic_set_property()?
Yeah, the legacy one is dead weight at this point.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/18] drm/vmwgfx: Remove confused comment from vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property
On 10/02/2018 05:15 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:35:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> The core _does_ the call to drm_atomic_commit for you. That's pretty
>> much the entire point of having the fancy new atomic_set/get_prop
>> callbacks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
>> Cc: VMware Graphics
>> Cc: Sinclair Yeh
>> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 6 --
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> index 292e48feba83..049bd50eea87 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> @@ -2311,12 +2311,6 @@ vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property(struct
>> drm_connector *connector,
>>
>> if (property == dev_priv->implicit_placement_property) {
>> vcs->is_implicit = val;
>> -
>> -/*
>> - * We should really be doing a drm_atomic_commit() to
>> - * commit the new state, but since this doesn't cause
>> - * an immedate state change, this is probably ok
>> - */
>> du->is_implicit = vcs->is_implicit;
> Maybe the comment is referring to delaying the du->is_implicit
> assignment to commit time? Otherwise a TEST_ONLY/failed commit
> will clobber this.
The is_implicit property is made read-only in a vmwgfx recent commit.
Not sure exactly where it ended up, though. (-fixes, -next or -limbo).
Need to take a look.
>
> Hmm. There's both .set_property() and .atomic_set_property()
> in there. I wonder what that's about.
Probably a leftover. I take it .set_property() is not needed when we
have .atomic_set_property()?
/Thomas
>
>> } else {
>> return -EINVAL;
>> --
>> 2.19.0.rc2
>>
>> ___
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fintel-gfxdata=02%7C01%7Cthellstrom%40vmware.com%7C8376824afaaa4e7ebd6808d6287a0a88%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C1%7C0%7C636740901969428557sdata=JDQsTWKhvZAyUnW76dNMFGm0nzJIJjNrSSJYtDuqDlg%3Dreserved=0
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/18] drm/vmwgfx: Remove confused comment from vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:35:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The core _does_ the call to drm_atomic_commit for you. That's pretty
> much the entire point of having the fancy new atomic_set/get_prop
> callbacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> Cc: VMware Graphics
> Cc: Sinclair Yeh
> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 6 --
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> index 292e48feba83..049bd50eea87 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> @@ -2311,12 +2311,6 @@ vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property(struct
> drm_connector *connector,
>
> if (property == dev_priv->implicit_placement_property) {
> vcs->is_implicit = val;
> -
> - /*
> - * We should really be doing a drm_atomic_commit() to
> - * commit the new state, but since this doesn't cause
> - * an immedate state change, this is probably ok
> - */
> du->is_implicit = vcs->is_implicit;
Maybe the comment is referring to delaying the du->is_implicit
assignment to commit time? Otherwise a TEST_ONLY/failed commit
will clobber this.
Hmm. There's both .set_property() and .atomic_set_property()
in there. I wonder what that's about.
> } else {
> return -EINVAL;
> --
> 2.19.0.rc2
>
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
