diff mbox series

[v7,2/4] drm/mediatek: Fix using wrong drm private data to bind mediatek-drm

Message ID 20230727164114.20638-3-jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Add dynamic connector selection mechanism | expand

Commit Message

Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) July 27, 2023, 4:41 p.m. UTC
Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm private
data into all_drm_priv array.

Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195 multi mmsys support")
Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

CK Hu (胡俊光) July 28, 2023, 8:03 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi, Jason:

On Fri, 2023-07-28 at 00:41 +0800, Jason-JH.Lin wrote:
> Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm
> private
> data into all_drm_priv array.

Reviewed-by: CK Hu <ck.hu@mediatek.com>

> 
> Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195
> multi mmsys support")
> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> index 249c9fd6347e..d2fb1fb4e682 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
> device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  	struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC];
> +	struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv;
>  	struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node;
>  	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>  	struct device_node *node;
> @@ -373,9 +374,18 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
> device *dev)
>  		if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> -		if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]-
> >mtk_drm_bound)
> -			cnt++;
> +		temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> +		if (temp_drm_priv) {
> +			if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound)
> +				cnt++;
> +
> +			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[0] = temp_drm_priv;
> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[1] = temp_drm_priv;
> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[2] = temp_drm_priv;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno July 28, 2023, 8:11 a.m. UTC | #2
Il 27/07/23 18:41, Jason-JH.Lin ha scritto:
> Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm private
> data into all_drm_priv array.
> 
> Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195 multi mmsys support")
> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>

Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Eugen Hristev July 28, 2023, 8:47 a.m. UTC | #3
Hi,

On 7/27/23 19:41, Jason-JH.Lin wrote:
> Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm private
> data into all_drm_priv array.
> 
> Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195 multi mmsys support")
> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> index 249c9fd6347e..d2fb1fb4e682 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>   	struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC];
> +	struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv;
>   	struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node;
>   	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>   	struct device_node *node;
> @@ -373,9 +374,18 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct device *dev)
>   		if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev))
>   			continue;
>   
> -		all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> -		if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]->mtk_drm_bound)
> -			cnt++;
> +		temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> +		if (temp_drm_priv) {
> +			if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound)
> +				cnt++;
> +
> +			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[0] = temp_drm_priv;
> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[1] = temp_drm_priv;
> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len)
> +				all_drm_priv[2] = temp_drm_priv;
> +		}

Previously the code was assigning stuff into all_drm_priv[cnt] and 
incrementing it.
With your change, it assigns to all_drm_priv[0], [1], [2]. Is this what 
you intended ?
If this loop has second run, you will reassign to all_drm_priv again ?
I would expect you to take `cnt` into account.
Also, is it expected that all_drm_priv has holes in the array ?

Eugen



>   	}
>   
>   	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {
Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) July 31, 2023, 8:21 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Eugen,

Thanks for the reviews.

On Fri, 2023-07-28 at 11:47 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 7/27/23 19:41, Jason-JH.Lin wrote:
> > Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm
> > private
> > data into all_drm_priv array.
> > 
> > Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195
> > multi mmsys support")
> > Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> > index 249c9fd6347e..d2fb1fb4e682 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
> > @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
> > device *dev)
> >   {
> >   	struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >   	struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC];
> > +	struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv;
> >   	struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node;
> >   	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> >   	struct device_node *node;
> > @@ -373,9 +374,18 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
> > device *dev)
> >   		if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev))
> >   			continue;
> >   
> > -		all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> > -		if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]-
> > >mtk_drm_bound)
> > -			cnt++;
> > +		temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
> > +		if (temp_drm_priv) {
> > +			if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound)
> > +				cnt++;
> > +
> > +			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
> > +				all_drm_priv[0] = temp_drm_priv;
> > +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
> > +				all_drm_priv[1] = temp_drm_priv;
> > +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len)
> > +				all_drm_priv[2] = temp_drm_priv;
> > +		}
> 
> Previously the code was assigning stuff into all_drm_priv[cnt] and 
> incrementing it.
> With your change, it assigns to all_drm_priv[0], [1], [2]. Is this
> what 
> you intended ?

Because dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev) will get the driver data by drm_dev.
Each drm_dev represents a display path.
e,g.
drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0" represents main path.
drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys1" represents ext path.

So we want to make sure all_drm_priv[] store the private data in
the order of display path, such as:
all_drm_priv[0] = the private data of main display
all_drm_priv[1] = the private data of ext display
all_drm_priv[2] = the private data of third display

> If this loop has second run, you will reassign to all_drm_priv again
> ?

Because the previous code will store all_drm_priv[] in the order of
mtk_drm_bind() was called.

If drm_dev of ext path bound earlier than drm_dev of main path,
all_drm_priv[] in mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv() may be re-assigned like
this:
all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path
all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path

But we expect all_drm_priv[] be re-assigned like this:
all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path
all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path

> I would expect you to take `cnt` into account.
> Also, is it expected that all_drm_priv has holes in the array ?

Each drm_dev will only called mtk_drm_bind() once, so all holes
will be filled after all drm_dev has called mtk_drm_bind().

Do you agree with this statement? :)

Regards,
Jason-JH.Lin

> 
> Eugen
> 
> 
> 
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {
> 
>
Eugen Hristev July 31, 2023, 8:32 a.m. UTC | #5
On 7/31/23 11:21, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote:
> Hi Eugen,
> 
> Thanks for the reviews.
> 
> On Fri, 2023-07-28 at 11:47 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/27/23 19:41, Jason-JH.Lin wrote:
>>> Add checking the length of each data path before assigning drm
>>> private
>>> data into all_drm_priv array.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 1ef7ed48356c ("drm/mediatek: Modify mediatek-drm for mt8195
>>> multi mmsys support")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
>>> index 249c9fd6347e..d2fb1fb4e682 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
>>> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
>>> device *dev)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>    	struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC];
>>> +	struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv;
>>>    	struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node;
>>>    	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>>>    	struct device_node *node;
>>> @@ -373,9 +374,18 @@ static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct
>>> device *dev)
>>>    		if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev))
>>>    			continue;
>>>    
>>> -		all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
>>> -		if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]-
>>>> mtk_drm_bound)
>>> -			cnt++;
>>> +		temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
>>> +		if (temp_drm_priv) {
>>> +			if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound)
>>> +				cnt++;
>>> +
>>> +			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
>>> +				all_drm_priv[0] = temp_drm_priv;
>>> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
>>> +				all_drm_priv[1] = temp_drm_priv;
>>> +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len)
>>> +				all_drm_priv[2] = temp_drm_priv;
>>> +		}
>>
>> Previously the code was assigning stuff into all_drm_priv[cnt] and
>> incrementing it.
>> With your change, it assigns to all_drm_priv[0], [1], [2]. Is this
>> what
>> you intended ?
> 
> Because dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev) will get the driver data by drm_dev.
> Each drm_dev represents a display path.
> e,g.
> drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0" represents main path.
> drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys1" represents ext path.
> 
> So we want to make sure all_drm_priv[] store the private data in
> the order of display path, such as:
> all_drm_priv[0] = the private data of main display
> all_drm_priv[1] = the private data of ext display
> all_drm_priv[2] = the private data of third display

If you have such a hard requirement for keeping elements in an array, 
you are better having
drm_priv_main_display
drm_priv_ext_display
drm_priv_third_display

Keeping them indexed in a three elements array by having no logical 
connection between the number [0,1,2] and the actual displays that you 
want to save is a bit confusing.

One other option which I don't know if it's better or not is to have
macros to hide your indexed approach:
all_drm_priv[MAIN_DISPLAY] ...
etc.

> 
>> If this loop has second run, you will reassign to all_drm_priv again
>> ?
> 
> Because the previous code will store all_drm_priv[] in the order of
> mtk_drm_bind() was called.
> 
> If drm_dev of ext path bound earlier than drm_dev of main path,
> all_drm_priv[] in mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv() may be re-assigned like
> this:
> all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
> all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
> all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path
> all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path
> 
> But we expect all_drm_priv[] be re-assigned like this:
> all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
> all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
> all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path
> all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path

This expectation does not appear to be really enforced in your code.
You have a driver that keeps an array with all_drm_priv[], in which
you can have main path or ext path. Then it's natural that they might 
have whichever order in the array you are placing them into.
If you have a hard enforced order of keeping elements in your array,
then an indexed array is not the best option here.
You can either: move to a different type of array , with macros for 
indexes into the array, or, store a second array/field which keeps the 
index in which you saved each element.

This is just my opinion , by looking at your code.

> 
>> I would expect you to take `cnt` into account.
>> Also, is it expected that all_drm_priv has holes in the array ?
> 
> Each drm_dev will only called mtk_drm_bind() once, so all holes
> will be filled after all drm_dev has called mtk_drm_bind().
> 
> Do you agree with this statement? :)

At the moment I cannot agree nor disagree, I don't know the code well 
enough. But what I can say, is that you should not rely on future calls 
of the function to fill up your array correctly.

> 
> Regards,
> Jason-JH.Lin
> 
>>
>> Eugen
>>
>>
>>
>>>    	}
>>>    
>>>    	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {
>>
>>
Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) Aug. 2, 2023, 7:05 a.m. UTC | #6
Hi Eugen,

On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 11:32 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> On 7/31/23 11:21, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote:
> > Hi Eugen,
> > 
> > Thanks for the reviews.
> > 

snip...

> > > > +			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
> > > > +				all_drm_priv[0] =
> > > > temp_drm_priv;
> > > > +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
> > > > +				all_drm_priv[1] =
> > > > temp_drm_priv;
> > > > +			else if (temp_drm_priv->data-
> > > > >third_len)
> > > > +				all_drm_priv[2] =
> > > > temp_drm_priv;
> > > > +		}
> > > 
> > > Previously the code was assigning stuff into all_drm_priv[cnt]
> > > and
> > > incrementing it.
> > > With your change, it assigns to all_drm_priv[0], [1], [2]. Is
> > > this
> > > what
> > > you intended ?
> > 
> > Because dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev) will get the driver data by
> > drm_dev.
> > Each drm_dev represents a display path.
> > e,g.
> > drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0" represents main path.
> > drm_dev of "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys1" represents ext path.
> > 
> > So we want to make sure all_drm_priv[] store the private data in
> > the order of display path, such as:
> > all_drm_priv[0] = the private data of main display
> > all_drm_priv[1] = the private data of ext display
> > all_drm_priv[2] = the private data of third display
> 
> If you have such a hard requirement for keeping elements in an
> array, 
> you are better having
> drm_priv_main_display
> drm_priv_ext_display
> drm_priv_third_display
> 
> Keeping them indexed in a three elements array by having no logical 
> connection between the number [0,1,2] and the actual displays that
> you 
> want to save is a bit confusing.
> 

Yes, I think it was a bit confusing.

But we don't know which drm_priv will go into this function first and
we want to store all drm_priv into the same array.
So it has come to this.

> One other option which I don't know if it's better or not is to have
> macros to hide your indexed approach:
> all_drm_priv[MAIN_DISPLAY] ...
> etc.
> 

Thanks for your advice.
I'll try to use macros to make it better and more readable.

> > 
> > 
> > > If this loop has second run, you will reassign to all_drm_priv
> > > again
> > > ?
> > 
> > Because the previous code will store all_drm_priv[] in the order of
> > mtk_drm_bind() was called.
> > 
> > If drm_dev of ext path bound earlier than drm_dev of main path,
> > all_drm_priv[] in mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv() may be re-assigned
> > like
> > this:
> > all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
> > all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of ext path
> > all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path
> > all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of main path
> > 
> > But we expect all_drm_priv[] be re-assigned like this:
> > all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
> > all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[0] = private data of main path
> > all_drm_priv[0]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path
> > all_drm_priv[1]->all_drm_priv[1] = private data of ext path
> 
> This expectation does not appear to be really enforced in your code.
> You have a driver that keeps an array with all_drm_priv[], in which
> you can have main path or ext path. Then it's natural that they
> might 
> have whichever order in the array you are placing them into.
> If you have a hard enforced order of keeping elements in your array,
> then an indexed array is not the best option here.
> You can either: move to a different type of array , with macros for 
> indexes into the array, or, store a second array/field which keeps
> the 
> index in which you saved each element.
> 
> This is just my opinion , by looking at your code.
> 

There is another statement in mtk_drm_kms_init() like this:

for (i = 0; i < MAX_CRTC; i++) {
	for (j = 0; j< private->data->mmsys_dev_num; j++) {
		priv_n = private->all_drm_private[j];

			if (i == 0 && priv_n->data->main_len) {
				...
			} else if (i == 1 && priv_n->data->ext_len) {
				...
			} else if (i == 2 && priv_n->data->third_len) {
				...
			}
	}
}

So we need to make sure that each element in all_drm_priv[] has only
one path data:
all_drm_priv[0] has main_path data only
all_drm_priv[1] has ext_path data only
all_drm_priv[2] has third_path data only

I think it would take quite a bit of effort to change this array usage.

> > > I would expect you to take `cnt` into account.
> > > Also, is it expected that all_drm_priv has holes in the array ?
> > 
> > Each drm_dev will only called mtk_drm_bind() once, so all holes
> > will be filled after all drm_dev has called mtk_drm_bind().
> > 
> > Do you agree with this statement? :)
> 
> At the moment I cannot agree nor disagree, I don't know the code
> well 
> enough. But what I can say, is that you should not rely on future
> calls 
> of the function to fill up your array correctly.
> 

I agree with your opinion, but at the moment, I just want to fix the
issue first by having a less modification.

I'll try to use macros to replace the array index and I'll add more
description into commit message to express the current limitation in
mtk_drm_kms_init().

Thanks again~

Regards,
Jason-JH.Lin

> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jason-JH.Lin
> > 
> > > 
> > > Eugen
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >    	}
> > > >    
> > > >    	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {
> > > 
> > > 
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
index 249c9fd6347e..d2fb1fb4e682 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c
@@ -351,6 +351,7 @@  static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct mtk_drm_private *drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	struct mtk_drm_private *all_drm_priv[MAX_CRTC];
+	struct mtk_drm_private *temp_drm_priv;
 	struct device_node *phandle = dev->parent->of_node;
 	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
 	struct device_node *node;
@@ -373,9 +374,18 @@  static bool mtk_drm_get_all_drm_priv(struct device *dev)
 		if (!drm_dev || !dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev))
 			continue;
 
-		all_drm_priv[cnt] = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
-		if (all_drm_priv[cnt] && all_drm_priv[cnt]->mtk_drm_bound)
-			cnt++;
+		temp_drm_priv = dev_get_drvdata(drm_dev);
+		if (temp_drm_priv) {
+			if (temp_drm_priv->mtk_drm_bound)
+				cnt++;
+
+			if (temp_drm_priv->data->main_len)
+				all_drm_priv[0] = temp_drm_priv;
+			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->ext_len)
+				all_drm_priv[1] = temp_drm_priv;
+			else if (temp_drm_priv->data->third_len)
+				all_drm_priv[2] = temp_drm_priv;
+		}
 	}
 
 	if (drm_priv->data->mmsys_dev_num == cnt) {