| Message ID | 20220831111243.1530620-1-javierm@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/simpledrm: Drop superfluous primary plane .atomic_check return logic | expand |
Hi Javier Am 31.08.22 um 13:12 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: > The simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check() function is more complex > than needed. It first checks drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state() returns > value to decide whether to return this or zero. > > But it could just return that function return value directly. It also does > a check if new_plane_state->visible isn't set, but returns zero regardless. > > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c | 15 ++++----------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c > index a81f91814595..0be47f40247a 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c > @@ -485,21 +485,14 @@ static int simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane, > struct drm_plane_state *new_plane_state = drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state(new_state, plane); > struct drm_crtc *new_crtc = new_plane_state->crtc; > struct drm_crtc_state *new_crtc_state = NULL; > - int ret; > > if (new_crtc) > new_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(new_state, new_crtc); > > - ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, > - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, > - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, > - false, false); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - else if (!new_plane_state->visible) > - return 0; > - > - return 0; > + return drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, > + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, > + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, > + false, false); I'm undecided on this change. I know it's correct and more to the point. But the call's logic is non-intuitive: the call either returns an error or we have to test ->visible afterwards. So I wrote it explicitly. I saw that your change to ssd130x also uses the pattern. If we find more such drivers, we could implement the atomic check as a helper. I suggest drm_plane_helper_atomic_check_fixed() in drm_plane_helper.c Best regards Thomas > } > > static void simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane,
Hello Thomas, On 9/5/22 12:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi Javier > > Am 31.08.22 um 13:12 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: >> The simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check() function is more complex >> than needed. It first checks drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state() returns >> value to decide whether to return this or zero. >> >> But it could just return that function return value directly. It also does >> a check if new_plane_state->visible isn't set, but returns zero regardless. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> >> --- >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c | 15 ++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >> index a81f91814595..0be47f40247a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >> @@ -485,21 +485,14 @@ static int simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane, >> struct drm_plane_state *new_plane_state = drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state(new_state, plane); >> struct drm_crtc *new_crtc = new_plane_state->crtc; >> struct drm_crtc_state *new_crtc_state = NULL; >> - int ret; >> >> if (new_crtc) >> new_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(new_state, new_crtc); >> >> - ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, >> - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >> - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >> - false, false); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - else if (!new_plane_state->visible) >> - return 0; >> - >> - return 0; >> + return drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, >> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >> + false, false); > > I'm undecided on this change. I know it's correct and more to the point. > But the call's logic is non-intuitive: the call either returns an error > or we have to test ->visible afterwards. So I wrote it explicitly. > Yes, but the check has no effect so I found it even less intuitive. Maybe add a comment then if you wan to keep the current code? > I saw that your change to ssd130x also uses the pattern. If we find more > such drivers, we could implement the atomic check as a helper. I suggest > drm_plane_helper_atomic_check_fixed() in drm_plane_helper.c > Sure. I can add a preparatory change in v2 that adds that helper and then use it in the follow-up patch.
Hi Am 05.09.22 um 13:06 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: > Hello Thomas, > > On 9/5/22 12:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >> Hi Javier >> >> Am 31.08.22 um 13:12 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: >>> The simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check() function is more complex >>> than needed. It first checks drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state() returns >>> value to decide whether to return this or zero. >>> >>> But it could just return that function return value directly. It also does >>> a check if new_plane_state->visible isn't set, but returns zero regardless. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c | 15 ++++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >>> index a81f91814595..0be47f40247a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c >>> @@ -485,21 +485,14 @@ static int simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane, >>> struct drm_plane_state *new_plane_state = drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state(new_state, plane); >>> struct drm_crtc *new_crtc = new_plane_state->crtc; >>> struct drm_crtc_state *new_crtc_state = NULL; >>> - int ret; >>> >>> if (new_crtc) >>> new_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(new_state, new_crtc); >>> >>> - ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, >>> - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>> - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>> - false, false); >>> - if (ret) >>> - return ret; >>> - else if (!new_plane_state->visible) >>> - return 0; >>> - >>> - return 0; >>> + return drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, >>> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>> + false, false); >> >> I'm undecided on this change. I know it's correct and more to the point. >> But the call's logic is non-intuitive: the call either returns an error >> or we have to test ->visible afterwards. So I wrote it explicitly. >> > > Yes, but the check has no effect so I found it even less intuitive. Maybe > add a comment then if you wan to keep the current code? > >> I saw that your change to ssd130x also uses the pattern. If we find more >> such drivers, we could implement the atomic check as a helper. I suggest >> drm_plane_helper_atomic_check_fixed() in drm_plane_helper.c >> > > Sure. I can add a preparatory change in v2 that adds that helper and then > use it in the follow-up patch. > Maybe wait for your ssd130x changes to land and then you can convert both drivers to the new helper. Best regards Thomas
On 9/5/22 13:37, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > [...] >>>> - return 0; >>>> + return drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, >>>> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>>> + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, >>>> + false, false); >>> >>> I'm undecided on this change. I know it's correct and more to the point. >>> But the call's logic is non-intuitive: the call either returns an error >>> or we have to test ->visible afterwards. So I wrote it explicitly. >>> >> >> Yes, but the check has no effect so I found it even less intuitive. Maybe >> add a comment then if you wan to keep the current code? >> >>> I saw that your change to ssd130x also uses the pattern. If we find more >>> such drivers, we could implement the atomic check as a helper. I suggest >>> drm_plane_helper_atomic_check_fixed() in drm_plane_helper.c >>> >> >> Sure. I can add a preparatory change in v2 that adds that helper and then >> use it in the follow-up patch. >> > > Maybe wait for your ssd130x changes to land and then you can convert > both drivers to the new helper. > Makes sense. I'll do that.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c index a81f91814595..0be47f40247a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c @@ -485,21 +485,14 @@ static int simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *new_plane_state = drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state(new_state, plane); struct drm_crtc *new_crtc = new_plane_state->crtc; struct drm_crtc_state *new_crtc_state = NULL; - int ret; if (new_crtc) new_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(new_state, new_crtc); - ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, - DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, - false, false); - if (ret) - return ret; - else if (!new_plane_state->visible) - return 0; - - return 0; + return drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(new_plane_state, new_crtc_state, + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, + DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING, + false, false); } static void simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane,
The simpledrm_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check() function is more complex than needed. It first checks drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state() returns value to decide whether to return this or zero. But it could just return that function return value directly. It also does a check if new_plane_state->visible isn't set, but returns zero regardless. Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/simpledrm.c | 15 ++++----------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)