| Message ID | 1683750665-8764-3-git-send-email-quic_khsieh@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | enable HDP plugin/unplugged interrupts to hpd_enable/disable | expand |
Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2023-05-10 13:31:05) > Intrenal_hpd is referenced by event thread but set by drm bridge callback > context. Add mutex to protect internal_hpd to avoid conflicts between > threads. > > Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> > --- This patch looks completely unnecessary. How can dp_bridge_hpd_enable() be called at the same time that dp_bridge_hpd_disable() is called or dp_bridge_hpd_notify() is called? Isn't there locking or ordering at a higher layer?
On 5/10/2023 3:46 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2023-05-10 13:31:05) >> Intrenal_hpd is referenced by event thread but set by drm bridge callback >> context. Add mutex to protect internal_hpd to avoid conflicts between >> threads. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> >> --- > > This patch looks completely unnecessary. How can dp_bridge_hpd_enable() > be called at the same time that dp_bridge_hpd_disable() is called or > dp_bridge_hpd_notify() is called? Isn't there locking or ordering at a > higher layer? Ack. We can drop this patch because we are protected by bridge->hpd_mutex in drm_bridge_hpd_enable() / drm_bridge_hpd_disable () and drm_bridge_hpd_notify().
internal_hpd is referenced at both plug and unplug handle. The majority purpose of mutext is try to serialize internal_hpd between dp_bridge_hpd_disable() and either plug or unplug handle. On 5/10/2023 4:11 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 5/10/2023 3:46 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2023-05-10 13:31:05) >>> Intrenal_hpd is referenced by event thread but set by drm bridge >>> callback >>> context. Add mutex to protect internal_hpd to avoid conflicts between >>> threads. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> >>> --- >> >> This patch looks completely unnecessary. How can dp_bridge_hpd_enable() >> be called at the same time that dp_bridge_hpd_disable() is called or >> dp_bridge_hpd_notify() is called? Isn't there locking or ordering at a >> higher layer? > > Ack. We can drop this patch because we are protected by > bridge->hpd_mutex in drm_bridge_hpd_enable() / drm_bridge_hpd_disable > () and drm_bridge_hpd_notify().
Hi Stephen On 5/10/2023 4:19 PM, Kuogee Hsieh wrote: > internal_hpd is referenced at both plug and unplug handle. > > The majority purpose of mutext is try to serialize internal_hpd between > dp_bridge_hpd_disable() and either plug or unplug handle. > > > On 5/10/2023 4:11 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >> >> >> On 5/10/2023 3:46 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2023-05-10 13:31:05) >>>> Intrenal_hpd is referenced by event thread but set by drm bridge >>>> callback >>>> context. Add mutex to protect internal_hpd to avoid conflicts between >>>> threads. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>> >>> This patch looks completely unnecessary. How can dp_bridge_hpd_enable() >>> be called at the same time that dp_bridge_hpd_disable() is called or >>> dp_bridge_hpd_notify() is called? Isn't there locking or ordering at a >>> higher layer? >> >> Ack. We can drop this patch because we are protected by >> bridge->hpd_mutex in drm_bridge_hpd_enable() / drm_bridge_hpd_disable >> () and drm_bridge_hpd_notify(). I understood now, so what kuogee is referring to is that this event_mutex protection is to not protect those 3 calls from each other (since they are already protected as we saw above) but because dp_hpd_plug_handle/dp_hpd_unplug_handle still uses dp_display.internal_hpd to re-enable the hot-plug interrupt, this is making sure that flow is protected as well.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c index 71aa944..b59ea7a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c @@ -1792,11 +1792,13 @@ void dp_bridge_hpd_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) dp = container_of(dp_display, struct dp_display_private, dp_display); + mutex_lock(&dp->event_mutex); dp_display->internal_hpd = true; dp_catalog_hpd_config_intr(dp->catalog, DP_DP_HPD_PLUG_INT_MASK | DP_DP_HPD_UNPLUG_INT_MASK, true); + mutex_unlock(&dp->event_mutex); } void dp_bridge_hpd_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) @@ -1807,11 +1809,13 @@ void dp_bridge_hpd_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) dp = container_of(dp_display, struct dp_display_private, dp_display); + mutex_lock(&dp->event_mutex); dp_catalog_hpd_config_intr(dp->catalog, DP_DP_HPD_PLUG_INT_MASK | DP_DP_HPD_UNPLUG_INT_MASK, false); dp_display->internal_hpd = false; + mutex_unlock(&dp->event_mutex); } void dp_bridge_hpd_notify(struct drm_bridge *bridge, @@ -1822,8 +1826,12 @@ void dp_bridge_hpd_notify(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct dp_display_private *dp = container_of(dp_display, struct dp_display_private, dp_display); /* Without next_bridge interrupts are handled by the DP core directly */ - if (dp_display->internal_hpd) + mutex_lock(&dp->event_mutex); + if (dp_display->internal_hpd) { + mutex_unlock(&dp->event_mutex); return; + } + mutex_unlock(&dp->event_mutex); if (!dp->core_initialized) { drm_dbg_dp(dp->drm_dev, "not initialized\n");
Intrenal_hpd is referenced by event thread but set by drm bridge callback context. Add mutex to protect internal_hpd to avoid conflicts between threads. Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)