From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-102.mailbox.org (mout-p-102.mailbox.org [80.241.56.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0F91285C99; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760478072; cv=none; b=phIPxgTdokh42TxyZt1XDW16dB5fDIx0/t7awUE2fYER0FVvjYmHrgpeqm7V/g3bwGwnBUTmLSL2MiQ3y+p7iKTZJor5dETEJQcUjwUOWa2eDjM7DcHeakEhuT3LNfSus2humuaMFfQHhko3PP1jIWwQpYt8UUYRqprA31o1Kqg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760478072; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ytgv92hePW2tpEJc0veYD1rUKYJy+P7TDMd7EkgdzpY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=HoM4+SaZPnlMQuURS4uLEt+2EBoXpUTTl7g9xW25+RojuFDCUhaDor2iX4M4AzPOhFSv+dZL7KwYUh4qSQZQRY1I/j5Fl00RnoxNxahYP44f/+8aoEpz284MmiJT9BCpZqITmnggBzU10o+9AjFk01v4sSJ1JPfAGHtzuL5g4jI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=oDxqF2ez; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.152 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="oDxqF2ez" Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [10.196.197.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-102.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cmSMR2cX5z9sGX; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:41:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1760478067; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U61MB9VOfRt1hj0ITPF6ydM4MPZpZPPkRsvW+GJ1Gcg=; b=oDxqF2ezQEDRXUOLaKjBEiBY8hSFA2g6J3hJShxaP3bw1zSVuZukyAkiDTqMQNbyaof9tc 66nmb4HF8qfjX7hwR8YWD19gvLkILD0j0wucY422JjJlAAl1Lbv/69h2DGu1BgUgpyLx7q PyC4BhIck6SfmBIQmsxsRZI4WTpCygNSMfqNG68UgIulJe9KPppp7Jz98xjH42YUo9n6tY T3NDrobVMzqEqsw0anHBYBMvbO71aRaNRUFBJvoeMzsIdJDE9giUm78si/zLZHG8TgwDbQ hMc7Jxfy4/nRhj+33zqHnZv6Ua1KN4/1OebsKhnFkxgyf4myy/AVQ6QyPSMv1A== Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:41:03 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/39] drm/imx: dc: crtc: Do not check disabled CRTCs To: Frank Li Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Abel Vesa , Conor Dooley , Fabio Estevam , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Laurent Pinchart , Liu Ying , Lucas Stach , Peng Fan , Pengutronix Kernel Team , Rob Herring , Shawn Guo , Thomas Zimmermann , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org References: <20251011170213.128907-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org> <20251011170213.128907-22-marek.vasut@mailbox.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-ID: e8265c260b39673e666 X-MBO-RS-META: j7xyy7b5irpu47k37jk9r5thhebyfj8q On 10/13/25 8:50 PM, Frank Li wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 06:51:36PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> If the CRTC is disabled, do not check it, as the check will fail. >> Skip over the disabled CRTC. > > sorry, I have not understand what means. It means that on inactive CRTC, the atomic check below will fail because there is no valid mode, and the check itself makes no sense. >> @@ -156,6 +156,10 @@ dc_crtc_atomic_check(struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct drm_atomic_state *state) >> struct dc_crtc *dc_crtc = to_dc_crtc(crtc); >> enum drm_mode_status status; >> >> + /* If we are not active we don't care */ >> + if (!new_crtc_state->active) >> + return 0; >> + >> status = dc_crtc_check_clock(dc_crtc, adj->clock); >> if (status != MODE_OK) >> return -EINVAL;