| Message ID | 20180731203430.GA30136@jordon-HP-15-Notebook-PC (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/rockchip: Convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() | expand |
Hi Souptick, Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use > drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). > > With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and > rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. > Both of these functions can be removed. > > Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be > used anymore. So this can be removed forever. > > Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com> the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly it is meant to be - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes (optional of course if the same) So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? Thanks Heiko
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > Hi Souptick, > > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). >> >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. >> Both of these functions can be removed. >> >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever. >> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com> > > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. > > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly > it is meant to be > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes > (optional of course if the same) > > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? We both are working together for these patches to convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume(). That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off in all similar patches. Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ?
Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > > Hi Souptick, > > > > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use > >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). > >> > >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and > >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. > >> Both of these functions can be removed. > >> > >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be > >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com> > > > > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. > > > > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly > > it is meant to be > > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author > > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes > > (optional of course if the same) > > > > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? > > We both are working together for these patches to > convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume(). > That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off > in all similar patches. > > Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ? Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-) I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12. So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend). Heiko
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: >> > Hi Souptick, >> > >> > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: >> >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use >> >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). >> >> >> >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and >> >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. >> >> Both of these functions can be removed. >> >> >> >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be >> >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com> >> > >> > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. >> > >> > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly >> > it is meant to be >> > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author >> > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes >> > (optional of course if the same) >> > >> > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? >> >> We both are working together for these patches to >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume(). >> That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off >> in all similar patches. >> >> Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ? > > Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-) > > I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a > tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12. > > So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with > both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend). We are ok with it :-) > > > Heiko > >
Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 15:14:24 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > >> > Hi Souptick, > >> > > >> > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > >> >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use > >> >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). > >> >> > >> >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and > >> >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. > >> >> Both of these functions can be removed. > >> >> > >> >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be > >> >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. > >> > > >> > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly > >> > it is meant to be > >> > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author > >> > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes > >> > (optional of course if the same) > >> > > >> > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? > >> > >> We both are working together for these patches to > >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume(). > >> That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off > >> in all similar patches. > >> > >> Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ? > > > > Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-) > > > > I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a > > tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12. > > > > So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with > > both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend). > > We are ok with it :-) applied to drm-misc-next with the second signed-off changed to co-developed-by. Thanks for that nice cleanup. Heiko
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c index f814d37..dd12390 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c @@ -243,60 +243,18 @@ static void rockchip_drm_unbind(struct device *dev) }; #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP -static void rockchip_drm_fb_suspend(struct drm_device *drm) -{ - struct rockchip_drm_private *priv = drm->dev_private; - - console_lock(); - drm_fb_helper_set_suspend(&priv->fbdev_helper, 1); - console_unlock(); -} - -static void rockchip_drm_fb_resume(struct drm_device *drm) -{ - struct rockchip_drm_private *priv = drm->dev_private; - - console_lock(); - drm_fb_helper_set_suspend(&priv->fbdev_helper, 0); - console_unlock(); -} - static int rockchip_drm_sys_suspend(struct device *dev) { struct drm_device *drm = dev_get_drvdata(dev); - struct rockchip_drm_private *priv; - - if (!drm) - return 0; - - drm_kms_helper_poll_disable(drm); - rockchip_drm_fb_suspend(drm); - priv = drm->dev_private; - priv->state = drm_atomic_helper_suspend(drm); - if (IS_ERR(priv->state)) { - rockchip_drm_fb_resume(drm); - drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(drm); - return PTR_ERR(priv->state); - } - - return 0; + return drm_mode_config_helper_suspend(drm); } static int rockchip_drm_sys_resume(struct device *dev) { struct drm_device *drm = dev_get_drvdata(dev); - struct rockchip_drm_private *priv; - if (!drm) - return 0; - - priv = drm->dev_private; - drm_atomic_helper_resume(drm, priv->state); - rockchip_drm_fb_resume(drm); - drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(drm); - - return 0; + return drm_mode_config_helper_resume(drm); } #endif diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.h index 3a6ebfc..d67ad0a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.h @@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ struct rockchip_crtc_state { struct rockchip_drm_private { struct drm_fb_helper fbdev_helper; struct drm_gem_object *fbdev_bo; - struct drm_atomic_state *state; struct iommu_domain *domain; struct mutex mm_lock; struct drm_mm mm;