Re: [PATCH 5/7] drm/msm/dpu: inline dpu_encoder_get_wb()

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>]

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.baryshkov@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.

> 
>>           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);

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry